JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of his plot No. 179 situated at Nehru Shopping Complex, Asnawar. It was pleaded in the plaint that he is owner of Plot No. 179, but the defendant illegally started construction over his plot, therefore, he is liable to be restrained and in case he has raised any construction, then the same may be ordered to be demolished. Defendant in his written statement pleaded that he is owner of Plot No. 178 and not of Plot No. 179, plaintiff has no concern with his plot, i.e. Plot No. 178. Trial Court framed three issues. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. Learned trial court, after appreciation of evidence available on record and considering submissions of parties, decided Issues No. 1 and 2 both in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2008 and restrained the defendant that he should not raise any construction over Plot No. 179, belonging to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant, but the same was dismissed by first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2009, which is under challenge in this second appeal preferred on behalf of the defendant. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that both the courts below have committed an illegality in deciding the suit treating that the defendant is claiming Plot/Shop No. 179, whereas there was specific pleading on his behalf in his written statement that he is owner of Plot/Shop No. 178 and not of Plot/Shop No. 179. He further argued that present suit was a simple suit for injunction and there was no prayer for declaration, therefore, both the courts below committed an illegality in passing the decree of declaration also. 4. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of findings of Issues No. 1 and 2 recorded by both the courts below. 5. 4. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of findings of Issues No. 1 and 2 recorded by both the courts below. 5. Both the courts below have specifically considered oral and documentary evidence of the parties and recorded a finding that a Patta No. 27 in respect of Plot No. 179 has been issued to the plaintiff and a Patta has been issued in respect of Plot No. 178 in favour of the defendant, therefore, defendant has no right to raise construction on plaintiff's Plot No. 179. Operative portion of judgment and decree passed by trial court will also reveal that a decree of permanent injunction only has been passed in favour of the plaintiff. In my view, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by both the courts below in respect of Issues No. 1 and 2. Both the issues are relating to questions of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below, which cannot be interfered by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. 6. A three-Judges-Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholaram v. Ameerchand (1981) 2 SCC 414 , considered the effect of amendment made in Section 100 of the CPC in 1976, and held as under: "......The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgments of the courts below were perverse and were given in utter disregard of the important materials on the record particularly misconstruction of the rent note. Even if we accept the main reason given by the High Court the utmost that could be said was that the findings of fact by the courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable but that by itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere in the absence of a clear error of law." 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ramaswamy Kalingaryar v. Mathayan Padayachi AIR 1992 SC 115 , while considering the scope of Section 100 CPC, held as under: "......Suggested shortcomings in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below would not alter the situation that those were findings of facts, unquestionable, under the provisions of Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, which defines the contours of the power of the High Court in second appeal.. ...." 8. ...." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdev Kaur & Others v. Kaki & Others- (2007) 1 SCC 546 , considered the true import, scope and ambit of Section 100 CPC by referring the Section 100 CPC, before and after amendment of 1976, various declarations of law by Privy Council and Supreme Court, Legislative background in the 54th Report of the Law Commission of India submitted in 1973, Historical perspective, Rational behind permitting second appeal on substantial question of law, and held as under: "81. Despite repeated declarations of law by the judgments of this Court and the Privy Council for over a century, still the scope of Section 100 has not been correctly appreciated and applied by the High Courts in a large number of cases. In the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court interfered with the pure findings of fact even after the amendment of Section 100 CPC in 1976. The High Court would not have been justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact in this case even prior to the amendment of Section 100 CPC. The judgment of the High Court is clearly against the provisions of Section 100 and in no uncertain terms clearly violates the legislative intention. 82. In view of the clear legislative mandate crystallized by a series of judgments of the Privy Council and this Court ranging from 1890 to 2006, the High Court in law could not have interfered with pure findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside and this appeal is allowed with costs." 9. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******