Honble SHARMA, J.— While decreeing the suit filed by deity Thakurji Shri Radha Ballabhji Birajman Gram Mandawar, the Sub Divisional Officer Hindaun City held that the deity being the perpetual minor was the Khatedar tenant of the land in question and the land cultivated by Pujari shall be deemed to be cultivated by deity. The defendant preferred appeal against the said decree but the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota dismissed the appeal. The Board of Revenue Ajmer however allowed the second appeal preferred by the defendant. The deity assailed the finding of Board of Revenue by filing writ petition but learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard rival submissions. 3. A look at the judgment of Board of Revenue reveals that while deciding second appeal it did interfere with concurrent finding of fact arrived at by SDO and RAA. In State of HP vs. Akshara Nand ( AIR 2000 SC 1828 ) the Apex Court held that concurrent finding of fact arrived at by lower appellate court and trial court could not be interfered with in second appeal. 4. It is well settled that a right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right attaching to litigation and does not exist and cannot be assumed unless expressly given by statute or by rules having the force of statute. The scope of first appeal differs from that of a second appeal in that the former is not limited to any particular grounds of appeal such as those provided in second appeal. The provisions restricting the grounds that may be taken in second appeal based on public policy expressed in the maxim interest re publicae ut sit finis litium. It concerns the State that there be an end to litigation. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricts the scope of second appeal only to the cases where substantial question of law involved, so that litigation may not drag on for a longer time. 5. Even on facts plaintiff Idol appellant herein, has a strong case. According to the provisions contained in section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 the Pujari Prabandhak does not acquire any khatedari rights over the land of deity even the land is cultivated by the Pujari. Since the deity is a perpetual minor, it is not possible for the deity to cultivate the land personally. According to the provisions contained in section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 the Pujari Prabandhak does not acquire any khatedari rights over the land of deity even the land is cultivated by the Pujari. Since the deity is a perpetual minor, it is not possible for the deity to cultivate the land personally. The Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that Pooran Mal and Inder Prasad had cultivated the land in the capacity of Pujari of deity. This fact has been admitted in the written statement by the defendant Har Sahai. Having carefully scrutinised the order of the Board of Revenue we find that no substantial question was involved in the second appeal filed before it by the defendant. 6. It was incumbent upon the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge to safeguard the rights of deity, a perpetual minor as is held by the Supreme Court in A.A. Gopalkrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007) 7 SCC 482 . It was indicated as under :- (Para 10) "The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/ archakas/ shebaits/ employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of “fences eating the crops” should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/ trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation." 7. Learned Single Judge therefore was not right in dismissing the writ petition and affirming the finding of Revenue Board. 8. For these reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated January 5, 2000 and April 30, 1985, respectively, passed by the learned Single Bench and the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer. While restoring the judgments and decrees passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Hindaun City and Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, we direct that the possession of the land in question be handed over to the appellant deity. While restoring the judgments and decrees passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Hindaun City and Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, we direct that the possession of the land in question be handed over to the appellant deity. A copy of this order be remitted to District Collector, Dausa for implementation. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs which we quantify Rs.2000/-.