JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Vivek Shukla, counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6.4.1995 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Haridwar, in Civil appeal No. 21 of 1993 State and another Vs. Kalu arising out of the Suit no. 191 of 1989 Kalu Vs. State of U.P. 3. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent being Original Suit No. 191 of 1989 Kalu Vs. State of U.P. praying therein to the following effect : ß¼v½ ;g fd fMxjh gqde bErkgh nokeh ¼LFkkbZ fus’ks/kkKk½ cgd oknh cj f[kykQ izfroknh x.k bl vej dh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd uD”kk utjh gefj”rk okn i= esa n”kkZ;k x;k edku ds lkeus dk lgu tks fcUnq v] c] l] n ls n”kkZ;k x;k gS esa dCtk oknh esa izfroknh x.k izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls gLr{ksi djus ls fuf’k) jgsA ¼c½ ;g fd [kpZ okn e; Qhl odhy oknh dks izfroknh x.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA ¼l½ ;g fd nhxj nknjlh tks jk; vnkyr esa equkflc gks cgd oknh lkfnj QjekbZ tkosA [kQlhy tk;nkn futkbZ ftldk iqjkuk uañ 105 u;k uañ 35 ,d fdrk edku if”pe eqgkuk mlds lkeus dk lgu tks fcUnq v] c] l] n ls uD”kk utjh gefj”rk okn i= esa n”kkZ;k x;k gS ftlds gnwn if”pe esa vkcknh pkSdhnkj] mÙkj esa [kM+Utk] nf{k.k esa vkcknh uwj eksgEen] iwoZ esa edku oknh ok ds dLck yU 4. Present Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : “(1) Whether the basis of defence taken needs to be proved in view of Section 90-A (2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 or not. (2) Whether the defendants are estopped by the Principle of Estoppel after their admission in evidence that the property in dispute is different from the property of the defendant. (3) Whether any notice alleged to have been issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises Act, 1972 debars from filing a suit for permanent injunction in a civil court.” 5. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the land shown by letters v] c] l] n and the defendants no. 2 keeps unwell with the plaintiff, in point of fact, he has no concern with the land of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the land shown by letters v] c] l] n and the defendants no. 2 keeps unwell with the plaintiff, in point of fact, he has no concern with the land of the plaintiff. 6. The defendant has contested the suit by filing a written statement denying therein that the plaintiff is the owner of the land. It has further been stated that the land in question was sold out to Pashupalan Vibhag Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow vide sale deed dated 23.8.1961, as such, the same is in occupation of the defendant in pursuance of the Hibbenama. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed following issues : ß¼1½ D;k fookfnr lEifÙk ij oknh vius iwoZtksa ds le; ls dkfct o ekfyd Fks\ ¼2½ D;k izfroknh 1961 ls fgcs ukek ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr lEifÙk ij dkfct o ekfyd gqvk\ ¼3½ D;k 1983 esa izfroknh us oknh o vU; O;fDr;ksa ds fo#) ih-,- ,DV dh èkkjk 4 ds vUrxZr dkjZokbZ dh\ ¼4½ D;k okn esa /kkjk 80 tkCrk fnokuh dk nks’k gS\ ¼5½ D;k okn dk ewY;kadu U;wu o U;k; “kqYd vi;kZIr vnk fd;k x;k gS\ ¼6½ D;k vuqrks’k ftls oknh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\Þ 8. On behalf of the plaintiff, Kalu himself and one Munna have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. Towards the documentary evidence, the plaintiff has filed receipts of the Nagar Kshetra Samiti, Landhore, Saharanpur Papers No. 10 Ka, 11 Ka, 12 Ka, 13 Ka, 14 Ka and notice 15 Ka. 9. On behalf of the defendants, Dr. Surendra Mohan Sharma, Narendra Singh and one Yasin have been examined as D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 respectively. Towards the documentary evidence, the defendants have filed certified copy of the Hibbenama Paper No. 30 Ga and Certificate issued by the Office, Town Area Committee, Landhore, District Haridwar Paper No. 44A. 10. While deciding the issues no. 1 and 2 as to whether plaintiff continues to be in possession from the time of ancestors, a finding has been recorded that the disputed property is in possession of the plaintiff from 23rd August, 1961, whereas the defendants have set up a Hibbenama in his favour on 23rd August, 1991 executed by one Kishan Singh and Kunwar Narendra Singh. 1 and 2 as to whether plaintiff continues to be in possession from the time of ancestors, a finding has been recorded that the disputed property is in possession of the plaintiff from 23rd August, 1961, whereas the defendants have set up a Hibbenama in his favour on 23rd August, 1991 executed by one Kishan Singh and Kunwar Narendra Singh. The trial Court has relied upon the statement of the plaintiff and the defendants and has recorded a finding that the defendants have failed to prove the ownership in pursuance of the Hibbenama executed by Kishan Singh and Kunwar Narendra Singh. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the land in question could not be said to be the part of the Hibbenama. The original Hibbenama was not produced only certified copy of the Hibbenama has been produced and the trial Court has disbelieved the same. The issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. 11. While deciding the issue no. 3 with regard to proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, there was no evidence on the record that the proceedings under Public Premises Act are proceedings of the plaintiff. 12. While deciding the issue with regard to fault of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since this point has not been forcibly argued by the defendants, thus, this issue has been decided against the defendants. 13. While deciding the issue with regard to relief, the trial Court has decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff relying upon the findings recorded while deciding issues no. 1 and 2. 14. After recording the aforesaid findings, the trial Court has decreed the suit for permanent injunction on 26.5.1993. 15. Against the aforesaid decree, an appeal was preferred by the defendants being Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993 State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Kalu. 16. While deciding the appeal, the appellate Court has the recorded a finding that on 23.8.1961, Hibbenama was executed and since the document was more than 30 years old and therefore, the same has been taken into consideration. 17. Kalu. 16. While deciding the appeal, the appellate Court has the recorded a finding that on 23.8.1961, Hibbenama was executed and since the document was more than 30 years old and therefore, the same has been taken into consideration. 17. So far as the proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act are concerned, there is no document on the record to prove that the plaintiff has been dispossessed or any proceedings are pending against the plaintiff and therefore, it will be open for the defendants to initiate the proceedings and the plaintiff shall not be evicted except in accordance with law. 18. Subject to aforesaid observations, since the appellate Court has already decided the controversy, and no question of law arises in the present case, therefore, the appeal is concluded by findings of fact. 19. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments v. P. Shanmugama and others (2005) 9 SCC 232, it has been held as under:- “14. In our view, High Court has no jurisdiction in the second appeal to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the first appellate court after careful consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, on record. It was not open to the High Court to reverse the findings of facts as it has done.” 20. In H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa 2006 AIR SCW 715, the Apex Court has observed as under :- “Under Section 100 of the Code (as amended in 1976) the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgments of the courts below is confined to hearing on substantial questions of law. Interference with findings of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence.” 21. However, the plaintiff shall not be evicted except in accordance with law from the premises in dispute. 22. Subject to observations made above, present second appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.