JUDGMENT 1. - In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Civil Appeal No.13/2006, whereby, learned appellate Court allowed appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kapasan in Civil Original Suit No.22/2005 (Old No.1/1996) whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. According to facts of the case, the respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit before the trial Court for permanent injunction, in which, it is stated that he is in possession of the yard ckM+k situated in village Akola and that ckM+k land is his ancestral property and his family is residing there for last one hundred years and they are using the ckM+k for their cattle and keeping agricultural equipments. On 26.09.1995, appellant Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the respondent-plaintiff, to which, reply was filed by the respondent; and, thereafter, the matter was proceeded with. In the circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff gave registered notice under Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act to the appellant which was received by the appellant Gram Panchayat on 26.10.1995. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent filed suit against the Gram Panchayat, Akola for permanent injunction not to disturb and evict him from the property in question.In the suit, after filing written-statement by the appellant-defendant, three issues were framed which are as follows : " 1- vk;k oknh ds okn i= dh fe0 ua0 1 esa mYysf[kr ckM+k oknh dk iq'rSuh gkdj ekS:lh feyfd;r dk gS] ftl ij oknh dk 100 o"kZ ls vf/kd dCtk gS\ 2- vk;k oknh dk ukfVl iapk;r ,DV dh /kkjk 109 ds vuqlkj fof/kor ugha gS\ 3- vk;k izfroknhx.k oknh ls fo'ks"k gtkZ /kkjk 35 lh0ih0lh0 ds rgr ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\ " 3. Learned trial Court finally decided the suit by which issues No.1 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff and issue No.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit with cost of Rs.1000/-. Against said judgment dated 15.09.2006, appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent and, in appeal, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and set aside the judgment dated 15.09.2006. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit with cost of Rs.1000/-. Against said judgment dated 15.09.2006, appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent and, in appeal, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and set aside the judgment dated 15.09.2006. The appellate Court accordingly passed decree for permanent injunction that the defendant-appellant Gram Panchayat shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent. The said judgment was delivered by the appellate Court on 01.09.2008, against which, the defendant Gram Panchayat has preferred this second appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is erroneous because the learned appellate Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. According to him, the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove his possession over the land in question and the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff was self-contradictory but this aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the lower appellate Court, therefore, the judgment and decree impugned deserve to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per the Commissioner's report the plaintiff failed to prove his long ancestral possession, therefore, the finding of the appellate Court is perverse and has no basis. It is contended that the appellant Gram Panchayat has acted in accordance with rules and the plaintiff was having full-fledged remedy and only legal course left to the plaintiff was to challenge the notice by filing appeal under Section 61 of the Panchayati Raj Act but, without availing the remedy available under law, the plaintiff approached the civil Court. The learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that although remedy is available to the appellant but he has availed remedy by way of filing civil suit. The appellate Court has erroneously reversed the finding arrived at by the trial Court, therefore, the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court deserves to be set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the finding given by the trial Court issue-wise. 7. The appellate Court has erroneously reversed the finding arrived at by the trial Court, therefore, the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court deserves to be set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the finding given by the trial Court issue-wise. 7. The learned appellate Court considered the commissioner's report and gave finding that respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the land in question and while deciding said issue No.1 the learned appellate Court considered the entire evidence on record, so also, the fact that no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant-defendant before the trial Court to show that respondent-plaintiff has made any encroachment over the land in question. In my opinion, therefore, the finding of the learned appellate Court is based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record, more specifically the commissioner's report, which does not require any interference. 8. Similarly, issues No.2 and 3 are also rightly decided by the appellate Court because it has not been proved by the Gram Panchayat that the land in question is belonging to the Gram Panchayat. Finding of fact arrived at by the appellate Court does not require any interference. More so, the judgment of the appellate Court is based upon sound reasons. Hence, there is no substance in this second appeal. 9. This appeal is, therefore, accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******