JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), No. 1, Sujangarh, District Churu and the appellate judgment and decree dated 15.2.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churn, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking permanent injunction has been decreed and the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant, inter-alia, with the averments that at Village Tehandesar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu for public Guwad ('way'), the plaintiff purchased the land from Gram Panchayat by Patta file No. 98 of 1985 ad measuring about 3642 Yards. The patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat through Kishna Ram. The land of open chowk and way was sought to be trespassed by the defendant, which is necessary to be stopped and his possession needs to be removed. The defendant was requested several times to remove the obstruction, however, he is bent upon trespassing on the land and raised permanent construction. It was claimed that the way would be reduced on account of such trespass and therefore, the defendant be restrained from trespassing the land and to remove the existing obstruction. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant, who denied the purchase of land and claimed that the sale of land for public way was illegal. The land was in his possession for over 50 years, neither he has trespassed on the land nor the way has been narrowed and presently also sufficient space is available. It was claimed that the land in question is comprised in Khasara No. 249 admeasuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswa, which was of the khatedari of Mohan Ram and continuous to be in his khatedari, the Court does not have jurisdiction and the plaintiff cannot bring the suit in his own name. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, four witnesses were examined and four documents were exhibited. 5. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, four witnesses were examined and four documents were exhibited. 5. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that a patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat for public Guwad, which has been issued in the name of plaintiff and one Dula Ram; the defendant has trespassed on the land comprised in the said patta; the plaintiff would suffer inconvenience on account of way being narrowed; the Civil Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter; the suit could be maintained by the plaintiff solely; the defendant failed to prove that the suit land pertaining to Khasara No. 249; the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat cannot be said to be illegal and ultimately, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and directed the defendant to remove the obstruction created by him and injuncted from trespassing on the land. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal, the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties reiterated the findings recorded by the Trial Court and upheld the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, inasmuch as, the land in question form part of Khasara No. 249, which belonged to one Mohan Ram, who gave possession of the land in question to the defendant. It was further submitted that the Courts below by relying on the statement of the defendant wherein he had said that even now sufficient space is available for the road, has come to the conclusion that the land in question pertains to the way, which conclusion is not justified and the finding in this regard is on its face perverse. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel, perused the judgment passed by both the Courts and have gone through the record of both the Courts below. 9. From the bare perusal of the sale deed (patta) dated 26.2.1985 Ex.-l issued by the Gram Panchayat and the map indicates that the land in question was lying vacant and has been indicated as ad measuring 3642 Yards. 9. From the bare perusal of the sale deed (patta) dated 26.2.1985 Ex.-l issued by the Gram Panchayat and the map indicates that the land in question was lying vacant and has been indicated as ad measuring 3642 Yards. However, the site map Ex.-2 clearly indicates the possession of the defendant on the land which is part of Ex.-l and the same is clearly by way of an obstruction on the public way/Guwad. The plea raised by the appellant that the land in question is comprised in Khasara No. 209 and that the same belongs to one Mohan Ram has not at all been proved by way of any cogent evidence, inasmuch as, no evidence whatsoever has been led by the appellant to prove that the land in question, in fact, pertains to the said Khasara No. 249. 10. The findings recorded by both the Courts below regarding the status of the land as well as the fact of appellants trespass are essentially findings of fact and the appellant having failed to show any perversity in the said findings, does not give arise to any substantial question of law. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******