JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Railmagra, District Rajsamand has been upheld. 2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed thus : the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction regarding a Nohra at Village Karoliya and prayed that he be declared as its owner and sought injunction against the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession and in case during the pendency of the suit any interference is done, then by mandatory injunction, the same be removed. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants disputing the claim made by the plaintiff and denied possession of the plaintiff. It was indicated that the suit property was in possession of the receiver under the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed six issues and after oral and documentary evidence was led by the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession and use of the suit property; the plaintiff failed to prove as to based on which document he was owner of the suit property and in view of conflicting stands regarding nature of possession, he failed to prove both stands; the receiver has already been removed and possession has been handed over to the defendant No.1; the suit was properly valued; the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the suit and dismissed the suit. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal under Section 96 CPC. The appellate Court after thoroughly examining the factual and legal aspects of the matter and the plea raised by the appellant, confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court regarding possession and ownership of the plaintiff and consequently dismissed the appeal as well. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below fell in error in dismissing the suit / appeal filed by the appellant. The courts failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, which has resulted in grave injustice to the appellant and as such, substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal and therefore, the appeal be admitted. 7. The courts failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, which has resulted in grave injustice to the appellant and as such, substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal and therefore, the appeal be admitted. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the judgments passed by both the courts below. 8. The courts below after critically analysing the oral and documentary evidence available on record have concurrently found that the plaintiff failed to prove his title to and possession of the suit property and consequently rejected the claim made by the plaintiff. The sheet anchor of the appellant being the Commissioner's report (Ex.-4) was rejected by both the courts below as the said report was not found within the parameters of a fair report and the Commissioner was not produced for proving the same. The rejection of the Commissioner report for the reasons recorded by both the courts below in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be unjustified. 9. The findings of fact pertaining to title and possession are concluded by concurrent judgments of both the courts below and the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the said findings. No substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal. 10. Consequently, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******