JUDGMENT 1] This is a Second Appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Amravati, dated 6th September, 1994 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1990, arising out of Regular Civil Suit No. 456 of 1984, decided by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Divn., Amravati on 29th August, 1990. 2] On perusal of records I find that at the time of admission of the present Second Appeal, no substantial question of law was framed by this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted two substantial questions of law, which according to him arise in the present Second Appeal : (1) Whether Exh.27, Purchase Certificate, dated 21st February, 1984, in respect of an area of 1 Acre 4 Gunthas out of Survey No. 17/1A in favour of appellant's father, coupled with the admission of the defendant No.1 that Haribhau was cultivating the same entitle the appellant's claim to be decreed ? (2) Whether the judgments passed by the Courts below are vitiated for placing reliance on the document Exh.50 i.e. order dated 5th June, 1971 inasmuch as the plaintiff had failed to prove the said document and the same was not a public document as held by the lower appellate Court. 3] The case of the appellant is that a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor was filed by the appellant contending that he is in possession of land survey No. 17/1A, area 1 Acre 4 Gunthas of village Khalkoni in the capacity as owner, as the same land was allotted to the appellant as per Revenue Case No. 2054/59(13)/6566 on 21st February, 1984. It is further contention of the appellant that he is also in possession of another area of the suit land admeasuring 36 gunthas from the land survey No. 17/1A of village Khalkoni. The said land was leased out by the respondent No.2 in the year 198384 and he has been in possession of said suit land in the capacity of owner. It is further his contention that on 22/6/1984, the respondent No.1 had destroyed the crop in the suit land and attempted to interfere with the possession of the appellant over the suit land. A police complaint was lodged to that effect and as no action was taken, the suit came to be filed by the appellant. It is further his contention that on 22/6/1984, the respondent No.1 had destroyed the crop in the suit land and attempted to interfere with the possession of the appellant over the suit land. A police complaint was lodged to that effect and as no action was taken, the suit came to be filed by the appellant. The respondent no.1 resisted the suit by filing his written statement and disputed that the appellant and his father late Motiram are in cultivating possession in respect of the land survey No.17/1A. It is further his contention that the area of 36 gunthas was not in respect of land survey No. 17/1A and it was neither in possession of the appellant nor the same was leased out to the appellant. It is further his contention that the appellant purchased the land survey No. 17/1A, admeasuring 81 R (2 acres) of Mouza Khalkoni for consideration of Rs.8,000/ by way of registered Sale Deed dated 03/3/1983 from respondent No.2 Ganesh and the said Ganesh delivered the possession of the suit land to the respondent. It is further his contention that he carried out the operation of sowing cotton in the year 198384 and since then, respondent No.1 is in possession of the land. It is further his case that the appellant tried to destroy the plantation of the respondent and disturbed his possession in respect of the suit land. It is further his contention that the Revenue Case No. 2148/59(13)/6566 was decided on 05/6/1971 in respect of land survey No. 17/1A and the said land was given to Babarao Bajirao Bhatkar and in that order, it has been stated that Motiram purchased the land admeasuring 1 acre 23 gunthas from property surveyed under No. 17/1 and that Motiram has no connection with the property surveyed under No.17/1A. As such, the appellant has no relation with land survey No. 17/1A. It is further his contention that the appellant was not in possession of any portion of the suit land and consequently, the suit deserves to be dismissed. The learned trial court Judge, after examining the witnesses and recording of evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant by its judgment and decree dated 29th August, 1990. It is further his contention that the appellant was not in possession of any portion of the suit land and consequently, the suit deserves to be dismissed. The learned trial court Judge, after examining the witnesses and recording of evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant by its judgment and decree dated 29th August, 1990. 4] Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1990, which also came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 8th September, 1994. 5] Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that defendant no.1 admitted that the appellant was cultivating the suit land and as such the courts below were not justified to come to the conclusion that the Purchase Certificate was not acted upon and was not concerning the suit land. He further submitted that non consideration of the said admission vitiated the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below which calls for interference by this Court. The learned counsel has further submitted that the document at Exh.50 was not proved and the appellant was taken by surprise as the existence of the said order was not even pleaded by the respondent no.1. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact that the respondent no.1 is in possession of the suit land pursuant to the Sale Deed executed in their favour and as such no interference is called for in the present appeal. The learned counsel demonstrated that the alleged Purchase Certificate was never acted upon and the same was obtained by collusion with the Revenue Officer. It is further her submission that the alleged Purchase Certificate is not in consonance with the declaration in favour of Motiram and as such there is no justification to interfere in the impugned judgments. 6] Dealing with the first substantial question of law framed at the instance of the appellant, I find that the learned trial court after examining the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the document at Exh.27, which is a Purchase Certificate dated 21/2/1984, is not in consonance with the declaration obtained by the appellant's father to the effect that he is tenant of the property survey No. 17/1. The learned Judge further on examination of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant had miserably failed to establish his possession over the suit property. The learned trial Judge considered the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 05/6/1971 at Exh.50, wherein the father of the appellant had clearly admitted that he was tenant of 1 acre 23 gunthas in respect of land survey No. 17/1. It is further stated therein that the father of the appellant was present and that he is in possession of land 1 Acre 23 R in respect of the property surveyed under No.17/1. The order further discloses that the father of appellant has no concern with the property survey No. 17/1A. The learned trial judge as such came to the conclusion that the Purchase Certificate sought to be relied upon by the appellant was contrary to the declaration and it appears that the same has been obtained in collusion with the revenue authorities. The learned trial Judge after examining the evidence on record, specially the survey records i.e. 7/12 extract in respect of property Survey No. 17/1A came to the conclusion that the appellant was not in possession of any portion of the suit land. For coming to such conclusion, the learned trial Judge examined the evidence adduced by the parties and found that the appellant has failed to establish that he was in possession of any portion of the suit property. The learned Judge also found that the respondent No.1 was claiming title on the basis of registered Sale Deed and in fact appellant had not filed any suit to seek any declaration with regard to the validity or otherwise of the Sale Deed. The appellant chose to file a suit for injunction simplicitor without seeking any further relief and as such, the paramount consideration is to ascertain whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. In the present case, the learned trial judge, on the basis of material on record, especially oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant was not in possession of the suit property. The learned Judge on the basis of 7/12 extract found that the records disclose that the property stands in the uncultivating possession of the defendant no.2 and his mother, who sold the property to the defendant no.1. The learned Judge on the basis of 7/12 extract found that the records disclose that the property stands in the uncultivating possession of the defendant no.2 and his mother, who sold the property to the defendant no.1. 7] The learned lower appellate Court while reappreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the certificate at Exh.27 was issued just before filing of the suit and the other certificate Exh.28 was issued after filing of the suit. The learned Judge further found that in the crossexamination of the appellant, he had admitted that the entire survey no.17 is admeasuring about 5 acres and some gunthas and that his father was not cultivating the entire survey no.17. The learned Judge has further held that on the basis of Exh.50, which is an order passed by the Additional Tahsildar in Revenue Case No. 2148/59(13)/6566, found that as per the said order Motiram Amrut, who is the father of appellant and Babarao Bajirao were shown to be tenants and that respondent No.2 Ganesh is shown to be the landlord. The learned Judge has further held that even if it has been mentioned in the particulars of the land as Survey No.17/1A, admeasuring 1 Acre and 4 Gunthas, the order further shows that both the tenants and landlord were present and tenant Motiram is in possession of the land 1 Acre 23 Gunthas from Survey No. 17/1 and he has no concern with the present litigation. The learned Judge has further held that this order makes abundantly clear that Motiram was in possession of the land survey No.17/1 to the extent of 1 acre and 23 gunthas and the said order, which is dated 05/6/1971, has not been challenged by Motiram in any court. From such material on record, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant's father Motiram cannot be considered to be tenant in respect of suit land survey No.17/1A. As such, in view of the said evidence on record, two Courts below were justified to come to the conclusion that the document Exh.27 was not in consonance with the declaration, which was obtained by the said father of appellant, way back in the year 1971. As such, in view of the said evidence on record, two Courts below were justified to come to the conclusion that the document Exh.27 was not in consonance with the declaration, which was obtained by the said father of appellant, way back in the year 1971. Considering that the father of appellant namely Motiram had himself admitted before the Tahsildar that he had no concern with the land beyond the property survey No.17/1, naturally the question of the appellant being in possession of any portion of the suit land did not arise at all. The learned Judge, as such, was justified to come to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled for the relief on the basis of document at Exh.27. It is also to be noted that the appellant was not in a position to identify which portion of the suit property survey No.17/1A was pertaining to the area wherein the father of appellant was claiming to be the tenant of suit land. The findings given by the Courts below are on the basis of the evidence on record and this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1990 (7) S.C.C. 303, in the case of Ram kumar Agrawal and another ..vs.. Thawar Das thru. LRs, has held that under Sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (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 question of law. Interference with the finding of fact by the High Court is not warranted, if it involves reappreciation of evidence. In the present case, the appellant has not produced any document to show that the father of the appellant was declared as a tenant of the suit land surveyed under no.17/1A from any competent authority and in its absence, the Purchase Certificate at Exh.27 cannot establish that the appellant is in possession of the suit land which has been purchased by the respondent no.1. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. These concurrent findings of facts based on evidence cannot be interfered with, in a Second Appeal. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. These concurrent findings of facts based on evidence cannot be interfered with, in a Second Appeal. On examination of the evidence of the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show a clear admission of DW1 that appellant was in possession of the suit land as contended by him, especially when the property claimed by the appellant has not been identified at all. The Courts below came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence on record that he was in possession of the property survey no.17/1. In view of above, the first substantial question of law, referred hereinabove, is answered accordingly. 8] Dealing with the next substantial question of law, I find that the order, which is at Exh.50 was duly exhibited before the learned trial Judge. In fact the respondents have amended their written statement incorporating therein the fact about the said order, which is at Exh.50. The written statement was duly amended and said facts were incorporated in the pleadings of the respondents. As such, it cannot be said that the evidence adduced by the respondents is not in conformity with the pleadings. Apart from that, though the father of appellant was a party to the said order, nevertheless, the appellant failed to adduce evidence to demonstrate in what way the said order does not affect the claim of the appellant in the present suit in respect of property survey No.17/1A. In fact the appellant had shown total silence of the said order, though his father was a party to the said proceedings. The learned Judge has in fact come to the conclusion that the appellant had come before the Court with apprehension without disclosing the material facts, which are required for the purpose of obtaining a relief of permanent injunction. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that considering the conduct of the appellant, he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the present case. As such, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any error by relying upon the document Exh.50, which has been duly proved by the respondent. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that considering the conduct of the appellant, he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the present case. As such, it cannot be said that the Courts below have committed any error by relying upon the document Exh.50, which has been duly proved by the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the averments with regard to the said order were incorporated in the Written Statement and that the order was duly exhibited at Exh.50. In view of above, the second substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9] On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I find that the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed to establish his possession over the suit property. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to show any perversity in the findings arrived at by the Courts below in respect of the possession as claimed by the appellant. The law is well settled that in Second Appeal, this Court cannot interfere in concurrent findings of fact nor reappreciate the evidence to come to any contrary conclusion. In the case of Mohan Lal ..vs.. Nihal Singh, reported at 2001(8) S.C.C. 584 , the Apex Court has held that the question with regard to possession is a question of fact, which cannot be interfered with in Second Appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion on the basis of material on record and after appreciating the oral evidence adduced by the appellant that the appellant has failed to establish his possession over the suit property. The Courts below have found that on the basis of the disputed Purchase Certificate no possession was delivered to the appellants and as such it has been held that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. There is no prayer for restoration of possession, if the appellant was so entitled in law. The said finding on possession is based on appreciation of evidence. No infirmity has been pointed out which would call for any interference in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The said finding on possession is based on appreciation of evidence. No infirmity has been pointed out which would call for any interference in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10] In view of above, there is no substance in the above appeal and consequently the Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.