JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J.(Oral):- Plaintiffs Vijay Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar – sons of Ved Parkash have filed the instant second appeal, after having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Plaintiffs alleged that they, along with their brother Jag Mohan, are owners in possession of the suit property and prior to that, their forefathers were in possession thereof for more than 100 years. The defendant, without any right, title or interest in the suit property, threatened to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs thereon. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiffs’ possession over the suit property and from dispossessing them forcibly therefrom. 3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. Central Government was owner of the suit property and defendant was in its possession for ten years and in view of said possession, the suit property was allotted to defendant vide conveyance deed dated 18.02.1991. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.2005, dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2006. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that Naib Tehsildar (Sales) had earlier made report Ex.P-2 dated 18.03.1991 depicting possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and therefore, plaintiffs are proved to be in possession of the suit property. The contention cannot be accepted. Merely on the basis of said report, possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property cannot be found. On the other hand, Naib Tehsildar (Sales) passed order Ex.D-4 dated 04.12.1998, wherein it is recorded that at the time of spot inspection, even plaintiff no.1 admitted that defendant is in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to counter this observation by submitting that vide earlier report dated 18.03.1991, plaintiffs were found to be in possession of the suit property. However, it is not the case of the plaintiffs at any stage that they were ever dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant during the pendency of suit, which had been filed on 28.02.1991. However, it is not the case of the plaintiffs at any stage that they were ever dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant during the pendency of suit, which had been filed on 28.02.1991. On the other hand, as per order Ex.D-4, even plaintiff no.1 admitted the possession of defendant over the suit property. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, admittedly after contest by the plaintiffs, the suit property had been allotted to defendant vide conveyance deed dated 18.02.1991 Ex.D-3 and consequently, the said conveyance deed was in the knowledge of plaintiffs. However, in the suit, the plaintiffs concealed the said material fact. Consequently, plaintiffs are disentitled to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. 8. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below that plaintiffs are not proved to be owners or in possession of the suit property. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner. There has been no misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. 9. It may be noticed that the plaintiffs alleged the suit property to be their ancestral property, but in evidence, they tried to depart from their said pleading and tried to prove that their uncle Ram Parkash was owner of the suit property. Thus, plaintiffs’ own evidence is contrary to their pleadings. However, the plaintiffs failed in their said attempt also to depict that their uncle Ram Parkash was owner or in possession of the suit property. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. However, it is made clear that nothing in the instant litigation shall affect the merits of the writ petition, in which allotment of the suit property to defendant is under challenge. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. ----------------