JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:- Appellants who are the legal representatives of plaintiff-Milkha Singh have filed this appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the suit land and further making construction was dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiff/appellants before the trial Court was that previously Milkha Singh, brother of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and now the plaintiff along with the other was in possession as per Rapat Roznamcha No. 598 dated 1.3.2002 and the defendants-respondents have no concern with the suit property who were trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellants and further trying to raise construction, hence, necessity arose to file the suit. 3. Upon notice defendant-respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits it was submitted that the suit land was owned by Shamlat Patti and Mukhtiar Singh along with other was in possession of the suit land as gair marusi. He had transferred rights of the land measuring 1 kanal 8 ½ marlas out of suit land to one Ram Sarup s/o Roora Ram vide affidavit dated 31.10.1989 and received a sum of Rs. 20,250/- he also transferred the possession to said Ram Sarup. Aforesaid Ram Sarup transferred the said land measuring 1 kanal ¼ marlas along with other land total measuring 1 kanal 8 ½ marlas to defendant-respondent No.1 and his wife Deepo vide affidavit dated 7.12.1993 after receiving consideration of Rs. 2,05,000/-. Said Ram Sarup transferred the possession of the aforesaid land to defendant No. 1 and his wife and since then they are in possession of the aforesaid suit property. Remaining land out of the suit land is in possession of the further occupants but Tejinder Singh and Kulwant Singh as alleged are in possession of the alleged possession of the suit land. Khasra girdawaris which were incorrect could not be got corrected due to ignorance. Mukhtiajr Singh in conspiracy with the plaintiff-appellants got changed the jamabandies in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and said Tejinder Singh etc fraudulently vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 598 dated 1.3.2002 just to cause wrongful loss to defendant/respondent No.1 and his wife. Defendant-respondent No.1 had constructed room in the said property. Mukhtiajr Singh in conspiracy with the plaintiff-appellants got changed the jamabandies in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and said Tejinder Singh etc fraudulently vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 598 dated 1.3.2002 just to cause wrongful loss to defendant/respondent No.1 and his wife. Defendant-respondent No.1 had constructed room in the said property. Plaintiff and his brother along with other demolished the Kotha constructed by defendant No.1. FIR has been lodged in the police station Malout. Plaintiff has not disclosed true facts. Remaining averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 4. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court recorded findings of facts that defendant was in possession of the suit land and, thus, plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants before the lower Appellate Court against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed. 5. While upholding the findings of the trial Court, the lower Appellate Court observed that plaintiff-appellants failed to bring on record creditworthy evidence in support of their case. 6. Still not satisfied, the LRs of plaintiff before the lower Appellate Court have filed the instant second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below. The relief of permanent injunction is sought by plaintiff appellant Milkha Singh on the basis of Rapat Roznamcha No. 13 of 2002 claiming that he has been put into possession by Milkha Singh who was earlier in possession of the suit land. However, both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiff appellants and have not relied upon the aforesaid Rapat Roznamcha. Appellants-plaintiffs have not established on record as to how they came into possession of the suit property and what was as alleged in possession of the suit property. 7. Otherwise also the question of possession is essentially a question of fact which has been answered against the plaintiff-appellants on appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any cogent evidence in favour of appellant it cannot be held that findings of Court below are perverse. Thus, no substantial questions of law arises in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. ——————————