JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Gangapur, District Bhilwara, whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Camp Gangapur, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2004 has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiffs appellants filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on 3.6.1994 with the averments that the plaintiffs along with defendant No.8 purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 Smt. Kesar, who executed a sale deed on 16.3.1993 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and the sale deed was registered and possession was handed over, ever since the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. The vendor Smt. Kesar has no male issue and has only two daughters, who are staying at their in-laws' place; it was alleged that the defendant No.4 grand daughter of the vendor on 1.5.1994 along with defendants No.5 to 7 with an intention to dispossess the bonafide purchasers and to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs tried to dispossess them and therefore, an application was made to police station Gangapur. Again on 29.5.1994, they indulged in the same activity and the defendants can dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property and therefore, issuance of permanent injunction was necessary against them and if during the pendency of the suit, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs, then mandatory injunction be issued for handing over possession of the suit property. It was claimed that the cause of action arose on 1.5.1994 and 29.5.1994. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants. It was claimed that the suit property belonged to the husband of the vendor Smt. Kesar and after death of Jawahar Mal, husband of Smt. Kesar, the property is not exclusively owned by Smt. Kesar and she (Smt. Kesar) was fraudulently made to sign the sale deed and without payment of any consideration, the document was got executed. Certain other submissions were also made seeking to question the validity of the sale deed. Certain other submissions were also made seeking to question the validity of the sale deed. It was specifically indicated that the plaintiffs were never in possession and the suit property continuous to be in possession of the defendants Smt. Kesar and Sohani, which is proved from the Commissioner's Report, which was obtained in the misc. application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. As the plaintiffs were never in possession, there was no question of attempt to dispossess. The allegations were made that the plaintiffs based on the fraudulent sale deed tried to dispossess the defendants and therefore, the report dated 4.5.1994 was filed before the S.P., Bhilwara. It was also claimed that the suit has been filed on deficient Court Fee and Valuation of the suit property is higher, the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed as many as eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants one witness was examined and one document was got executed. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the sale deed (Ex.-1) was not proved, the possession of the plaintiffs was not proved and therefore, they were not entitled for issuance of permanent injunction; the suit property was never in possession of the plaintiffs and therefore, there is no question of their dispossession during the pendency of the suit. Smt. Kesar could not execute the sale deed, all by herself, the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable as the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property; the suit was properly valued and the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The suit has apparently been filed for grabbing the land based on the fraudulent sale deed and consequently, dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-plaintiffs filed appeal, the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties did not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the trial court and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the courts fell in error in dismissing the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-plaintiffs filed appeal, the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties did not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the trial court and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the courts fell in error in dismissing the suit. The appellants had registered sale deed in their favour and merely because the witnesses to the sale deed were not produced, it cannot be said that the sale was not proved. It was further submitted that the registered sale deed was sufficient to prove that the plaintiffs were in possession and the finding, contrary recorded by both the courts below, is wholly perverse. It was submitted that the appeal deserves to be admitted as the same involves substantial questions of law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the fact of the appellants not being in possession of the suit property is concluded by concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below and simple suit for injunction, therefore, was not maintainable. It was submitted that the sale deed was got executed fraudulently and the execution thereof was clearly denied by Smt. Kesar and therefore, it was incumbent of the plaintiffs to prove the execution by production of the witnesses to the sale deed, in absence whereof no reliance can be placed on the sale deed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and has perused the judgments placed by both the courts below along with the record of the court below. 10. Admittedly, the suit in question was filed seeking permanent injunction based on possession of the suit property and title on account of the sale deed said to have been executed by the defendant Smt. Kesar, however, a prayer was made seeking mandatory injunction, seeking delivery of possession from the defendants, in case the plaintiffs should dispossess during the pendency of the suit. 11. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs. On an application made by the defendants, the Court appointed Commissioner in the said application and the Commissioner categorically found that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. 11. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs. On an application made by the defendants, the Court appointed Commissioner in the said application and the Commissioner categorically found that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. Further the trial court while deciding the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC recorded a finding about possession of the defendants and besides dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs, injected the plaintiffs from dispossessing the defendants during the pendency of the suit. 12. Even in the evidence led before the trial court in the suit except for reliance on the averments made in the sale deed, the plaintiffs failed to place on record any evidence regarding their possession. 13. In view of the fact that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property, the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramji Rai and Anr. v. Jagdish Mallah (Dead) through L.Rs. and Anr., 2007 AIR SCW 599 observed as under:- "On the finding of facts, we do not wish to interfere. There is no reason to reverse the concurring findings. However, suffice it to state that the lower appellate court should have dismissed the suit filed by the appellants only on the ground that the appellants had failed to prove that they were in possession of the disputed lands. Under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 an injunction restraining disturbance of possession will not be granted in favour of the plaintiff who is not found to be in possession. In the case of a permanent injunction based on protection of possessory title in which the plaintiff alleges that he is in possession, and that his possession is being threatened by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to sue for mere injunction without adding a prayer for declaration of his right." 15. The finding of both the courts below regarding the possession of the plaintiffs and the sale deed of the suit property are concurrent findings of fact and counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any perversity in the said findings and as such, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration of appeal. 16. The finding of both the courts below regarding the possession of the plaintiffs and the sale deed of the suit property are concurrent findings of fact and counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any perversity in the said findings and as such, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration of appeal. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******