JUDGMENT 1. - These are two appeals. The first appeal bearing no.92/2008 has been filed by appellant Shyam Sunder against the judgement of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur who by his judgement dated 8.8.2010 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Bharatpur dated 8.8.2005. The second appeal bearing no.17/2010 has been filed by appellant-Shyam Sunder, Rupesh and Gourav against the judgement dated 8.8.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur whereby the appeal of the respondent-Amar Chand was allowed and the decree passed by the trial court dated 8.8.2005 was set aside. Thus there is a contradiction in the judgements. 2. The facts of appeal no.92/2008 are taken for the convenience. 3. The appellant filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction along with temporary injunction application pleading that he is in possession and ownership of the land measuring 12 feet, which he claimed to have purchased by registered sale deed dated 26.5.1980. The defendant did not have any right or title over the plot and yet wants to raise construction on the plot by making encroachment on the appellants' plot. It was therefore prayed that the respondent-defendant may be restrained by issuance of perpetual injunction. 4. The defendant in written statement claimed that the disputed plot was of his own. He has both title and possession over the disputed plot since 28.5.1980. He has constructed a garrage on that plot on the northern side and has fixed a door on its southern side. There is 12 feet wide way in between the plot of the defendant and the plaintiff. The plot number of the plaintiff was 52 whereas the defendant has two plots i.e. plot no.45 and 46 and plot no.51 was of Tilak Raj where he himself resides. It was therefore prayed that plaintiff may not be permitted to encroach upon the 12 feet wide way in between two plots. 5. The learned trial court after analysing the evidence of the parties concluded that in sale deed Ex.1 and the site plan Ex.2 enclosed therewith produced by the plaintiff, the plot in the northern side of the disputed land is said to be by one Amar Chand Salva whereas in southern side a public way has been shown. 5. The learned trial court after analysing the evidence of the parties concluded that in sale deed Ex.1 and the site plan Ex.2 enclosed therewith produced by the plaintiff, the plot in the northern side of the disputed land is said to be by one Amar Chand Salva whereas in southern side a public way has been shown. If all these documents which the plaintiff has produced are accepted, he has shown upto 12 feet towards northern side as his own, whereas clearly this land belongs to the defendants. Besides, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff has also failed to prove that he was in possession of the disputed land, rather he is claiming that the defendant has encroached upon this land of 1.7.2000 during pendency of the suit. The learned trial court held that the plaintiff brought in subsequent development on record to show as to in which part of the land, the defendant has encroached upon. The first appellate court upheld that finding of the learned trial court. It was observed by the first appellate court that the plaintiff was claiming that he purchased the disputed plot in the land of Gram Panchayat Anah, whereas the land of Chitariya was situated 1 km from Anah. Ex.3 is a patta issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Malah, according to which a piece of land was sold to the plaintiff Shyam Sunder for Rs. 200, but this document is unregistered despite the sale being more than Rs. 100, therefore, cannot be read in evidence. Apart from that, this was a disputed land and does not indicate as to whom it belongs. There is only a way shown between plot no.2 to plot no.4. 6. PW-1 when he appeared in his evidence has stated that he purchased the land from someone in village Anah and that there is a house in northern side of land in village Anah, but he cannot give name of its owner. On the eastern side, there is land of Chitariya. There is open land on the western side of his plot and thereafter there is a public way. The land purchased by him is shown in Ex.2. There is a constructed house shown parallel to the area indicated in the red ink in Ex.2 and between house and the shop if any land of 12 feet is lying vacant, he cannot say. The land purchased by him is shown in Ex.2. There is a constructed house shown parallel to the area indicated in the red ink in Ex.2 and between house and the shop if any land of 12 feet is lying vacant, he cannot say. But the plaintiff stated that he was in possession of 12 feet land because the Panchayat at the time of sale of this land to him also mentioned that the remaining land was also be that of the purchaser. In contrast to this, the evidence of DW-1 Amar Chand was also examined, who asserted that he purchased the plot no.45 and 46 from the land of khasra no.126, in southern side of which, there is a 12 feet wide road, which was a public way. This land does not belong to Gram Panchayat Malah, but it is an agriculture land. The plaintiff has purchased the land beyond the land of this public way and in his sale deed this has been shown as 12 feet wide way and he filed the suit to grab that land. The plot number of the plaintiff was 52. 7. The learned appellate court has also examined the report of the Commissioner, who too proved that there is a 12 feet wide way and thereafter is the factory of plaintiff Shyam Sunder. The windows, ventilators and doors of his house are opening on that disputed land of the way. The appellate court on the basis of analysis of evidence found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed land was of his title or ownership and also failed to prove that the land which he purchased by sale deed dated 26.5.1980 was exactly the same which was in his possession. 8. It may be significant to note that when the suit was filed in appeal no.92/08 on 1.7.2000 and in appeal no.17/2010 on 13.9.2000, the defendant in the first suit also filed a cross suit. That suit was decided by the same Presiding Officer, but surprisingly in that suit, the Presiding Officer has recorded a divergently opposite finding relating to dispute land. That suit was decided by the same Presiding Officer, but surprisingly in that suit, the Presiding Officer has recorded a divergently opposite finding relating to dispute land. The issue that were framed was that whether the defendants nos.1 to 3 who are plaintiffs in the appeal no.92/08 i.e. Shyam Sunder, Rupesh Garg @ Guddan and Gaurav Garg had without the permission of Municipal Corporation, encroached upon the public way and that the defendant no.1 Shyam Sunder under the garb of the lease deed dated 26.5.1980 wants to encroach upon the public way. The trial court in that case held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there exists a 12 feet wide road towards the southern side of the dispute plot. The first appellate court in appeal reversed that finding. The Commissioner report has given detailed reasons for holding that the existence of 12 feet wide road relying on the own statement of the defendant Shyam Sunder in that case, who admitted so. The appellate court therefore recorded the finding that on western side of the land of Amar Chand and the eastern side of the land which the defendant Shyam Sunder purchased from Chitariya, the existence of 12 feet wide way marked as 'EFGH' in Ex.1, is proved. 9. Shri Brijendra Singh Kachhawa, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the courts below have decided the matter on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without due application of mind. Learned counsel for the appellant has though sought to assail the findings recorded by the appellate court in both the matters and argued that it is based on misreading of evidence and that the plot in question was purchased by registered sale deed by the appellant from Gram Panchayat from khasra no.131. The sale deed was executed vide Ex.P3 and site plan is Ex.P2. The adjoining plot in the size of 60 x 40 feet is situated in khasra no.126. The trial court in the suit filed by Amar Chand rightly held that the way of 12 feet wide did not exist on the ground, therefore, the trial court could not have in the suit filed by the appellant Shyam Sunder held that he failed to prove ownership and possession over the disputed land. 10. The trial court in the suit filed by Amar Chand rightly held that the way of 12 feet wide did not exist on the ground, therefore, the trial court could not have in the suit filed by the appellant Shyam Sunder held that he failed to prove ownership and possession over the disputed land. 10. In view of the analysis of evidence made above, the trial court was not at all justified in recording divergently contradictory finding in two suits pertaining to the same land when both the suits were filed before the same court and decided by the same Court. 11. The appellate court in my considered view has rightly reconciled the findings based on the evidence and material on record. The appeals in my view do not raise any question of law, much less any substantial question of law for its adjudication. 12. Both the appeals are therefore dismissed.Appeals Dismissed. *******