JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-defendant, Manoharlal, has challenged the legal validity of the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Chittogarh, whereby the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), No.2, Chittorgarh, wherein the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and had decreed the counter-claim filed by the appellant-defendant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Mrs. Ramkanya had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant, Manoharlal, inter-alia, on the ground that there is a house described in Para 1 of the plaint, which belonged to her father. After his death, the house devolved down to her brother, Shivnarain, who was blind. On 29.4.1969, Shivnarain made a Will in her favour. However, Shivnarain has not been heard of for many years. Meanwhile, on 12.10.1996 the appellant-defendant tried to forcibly enter the said house and tried to dispossess her. Therefore, she filed the suit for permanent injunction. 3. The appellant-defendant filed both written statement as well as a counterclaim. He claimed that Shivnarain is still alive. He further claimed that the plaintiff did not possess any part of the property in dispute. He further claimed that the northern part of the house belonged to his forefathers and from them he inherited the said portion of the house. He further claimed that Shivnarain had created a wall in between the house which the respondent-plaintiff tried to demolish. Lastly, he claimed that it is the respondent-plaintiff who is trying to illegally possess the entire house. Therefore, his counter-claim against her. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues including the issue of relief. 5. In order to buttress her case, the respondent-plaintiff examined five witnesses. In turn the appellant-defendant also examined five witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2002, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit, but allowed the counter-claim filed by the appellant-defendant. Since the respondent-plaintiff was aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2002, she filed the first appeal before the learned Judge. Vide judgment dated 24.10.2005, the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2002, and has granted the decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, and has dismissed the counter-claim filed by the appellant-defendant. Since the respondent-plaintiff was aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2002, she filed the first appeal before the learned Judge. Vide judgment dated 24.10.2005, the learned Judge has reversed the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2002, and has granted the decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, and has dismissed the counter-claim filed by the appellant-defendant. Hence, this second appeal before this Court. 6. Mr. Bharat Shrimali, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the respondent-plaintiff failed to prove her title to the property in dispute. Secondly, that the Will upon which she was relying upon could not come into effect till the death of Shivnarain. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff did not have the right over the property. Moreover, that according to the appellant-defendant, he had inherited the property through his forefathers. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court has erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and in dismissing the cross-objection filed by the appellant. 7. On the other hand, Vijay Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, has contended that the factual matrix of the case has been appreciated in depth by the first appellate Court. The appellant-defendant has himself admitted that the entire house belonged to Shivnarain. He has further admitted that the respondent-plaintiff was Shivnarian's sister. He further admitted that she was in possession of the southern part of the house. Moreover, according to the learned Judge, the appellant has failed to show, in the cross-objection, as to how the northern part of the house came to belong to his forefathers or to him. Once he has admitted in his written statement that the house, indeed, belonged to Shivnarain, it was incumbent upon him to show as to how he has the title to the northern part of the house. However, he has failed to establish his possession and his title. Lastly, that his case merely raises questions of fact, which cannot be entered into by this Court in its jurisdiction under the second appeal. Even if there are two interpretations possible of the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court, this Court cannot interfere in the civil second appeal. Most importantly, no substantial questions of law arise in this appeal. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment. 9. Even if there are two interpretations possible of the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court, this Court cannot interfere in the civil second appeal. Most importantly, no substantial questions of law arise in this appeal. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment. 9. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 24.10.2005 clearly reveals that the learned. Judge has meticulously examined and critically analyzed the evidence. The learned Judge has noticed the fact that the appellant-defendant had agreed that the property in dispute was well defined in the plaint. In his written statement, he had also admitted that the respondent-plaintiff was a sister of Shivnarain. He has further admitted that the entire house belonged to Shivnarain. Secondly, the learned Judge has clearly noticed the fact that in his counter-claim the appellant-defendant had claimed that the northern portion of the house belonged to his ancestors. However, he has failed to prove this plea. Moreover, he has not been able to establish under what circumstances he came into possession of the said property. Lastly, it was admitted that the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the property. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting a permanent injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and in dismissing the counter-claim filed by the appellant-defendant. 10. Most importantly, since this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, since the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. is extremely limited one, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******