JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge, Dholpur upholding the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2011, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No.2, Dholpur whereby the appellant-plaintiff's suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') had filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent-defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants'). In the plaint, it was stated that there was a public chowk at Mohalla Hathivan Dashera Road, Dholpur used by the plaintiff. On the northern side of the public chowk, there existed house of defendant Nos.2 & 3 land and on the western side, there existed the land of one Mohd. Shareef. On the southern side of the chowk there existed the house of defendant No.1 and on the eastern side, a public way. On the eastern side of the house of the defendant No.1, Smt. Shaboo house, there existed an Imambada wherein Tajiyas were kept and other public functions and marriages took place. It was submitted that there was no doors and windows of defendant Nos.2 & 3 opening towards disputed chowk. The plaintiffs submitted that the defendants illegally sought to take possession over the public chowk and had started raising certain construction thereon without seeking permission from Municipal Board, Dholpur. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed that the defendants be restrained from trespassing over the public chowk and from raising any construction thereon. 3. On notice, the defendant No.1 filed written statements of denial with the prayer to dismiss the suit. The written statement of denial was also filed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 denying that there existed any public chowk and submitted that the property in dispute was purchased by them by a registered sale-deed on 18.03.1989 from one Abdul Majid. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed six issues. 4. The plaintiff in support of his case got examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3. In defence, the defendants got examined four witnesses as DW-1 to DW-2/3 and exhibited four documents. The learned trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record, dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decreed dated 21.12.2011. 4. The plaintiff in support of his case got examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3. In defence, the defendants got examined four witnesses as DW-1 to DW-2/3 and exhibited four documents. The learned trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record, dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decreed dated 21.12.2011. An appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 21.12.2011 was filed by the plaintiff which was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013. Hence this second appeal. 5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments and decree passed by this courts below. 6. The courts below have come to a finding of fact that the defendants Manzoor Khan and Salim Khan had purchased the disputed property by way of a registered sale-deed and had also obtained permission from the competent authority for making construction thereon. For the aforesaid conclusion, the courts below have relied upon exhibit A/1 and A/2 pertaining the purchase of the disputed parcel of land by a registered sale-deed and exhibits A/3 to A/4 for coming to a finding of fact that building permission had also been obtained for construction over property owned and possessed by the defendants. The courts below also found that no challenge to the building permission had been laid by any of the plaintiffs. In this circumstance, the courts below have held that no ground for grant of injunction treating the disputed property as a public chowk was made out. In my considered opinion, the finding on the title of the defendants in respect of the disputed parcel of land is a finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence before the courts below. So to the findings of the courts below that the construction on the land belonging to the defendants had been made with due permission of the competent authority. All findings of fact are based on documentary evidence laid before the courts below. Therefore in dismissing the suit for injunction, the courts below cannot be held to have acted contrary to the evidence on record, acted perversely or otherwise misdirected themselves in law. No other substantial question of law is otherwise even remotely made out either from the pleadings of the parties or from the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 7. No other substantial question of law is otherwise even remotely made out either from the pleadings of the parties or from the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999)3 SCC 722 ] , has held that the concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed by the High Court in the exercise of the powers under section 100 CPC. 8. Consequently, the second appeal is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******