JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 16.02.2009 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jodhpur has been upheld. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments that the suit property was of their ownership and possession, which was purchased by them by registered sale deed from Amna legal representative of Abdul Mazid through her power of attorney holder Taj Mohammed; one Jagdish Singh had instituted proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff, wherein, the Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur by his order dated 26.03.1977 directed the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Ratanada to keep possession till decision of the competent court and was appointed receiver; despite the said order defendant No.2 did not take possession and one Jai Singh trespassed on the said property and thereafter filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant No.2, which suit came to be decreed by the trial court on 18.05.2005 and while accepting the possession of Jai Singh, temporary injunction was passed by the trial court; as the property was in possession of Jai Singh, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against Jai Singh, which was decided by the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur and in execution of the said decree, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiffs on 04.05.2007 and, as such, in pursuance to the decree, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property w.e.f. 04.05.2007; the defendant No.1 was threatening the plaintiffs and not permitting them to raise construction when they have no right to do so; the plaintiffs are entitled to seek permanent injunction against the defendants; in view of the above facts, it was prayed that permanent injunction be issued against the defendants. 3. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants questioning the title of the plaintiffs and it was claimed that the land was Government land; it was claimed that the sale deed was void and ineffective as the vendor had no right to execute the sale deed; the civil rights regarding the disputed land have not been decided; the possession of Jai Singh was denied and it was claimed that defendant No.2 was in possession of the suit property as receiver; it was alleged that a collusive decree has been obtained against Jai Singh; without conclusion of the3 proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the plaintiffs were not entitled to remain in possession; ultimately it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed four issues; after oral and documentary evidence was led by the plaintiffs, the defendants led oral evidence and after hearing the parties the trial court came to the conclusion that the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur treating the plaintiffs as owners of the land directed delivery of possession to the plaintiffs, where-after the Additional Collector, Jodhpur dropped the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which order was marked as Exhibit-11; the possession of the plaintiffs was proved from the report of the Patwari as Exhibit-13 and no documentary evidence was produced by the defendants questioning or disputing the ownership of the plaintiffs; the possession of the plaintiffs was proved from the record of the execution proceedings; the suit even in absence of notice under Section 80 CPC was maintainable and, consequently, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession and the construction being raised by the plaintiffs. 5. Feeling aggrieved, Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur filed first appeal under Section 96 CPC. 6. The first appellate court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that in view of the judgment (Exhibit-6), decree (Exhibit-7), warrant of possession (Exhibit-8), report of the sale amin (Exhibit-9) and receipt of possession (Exhibit-10) it was proved that the suit property was of the title, ownership and possession of the plaintiffs; the defendants cannot be said to be in possession of the suit property and the finding on issue No.3 relating to requirement of notice under Section 80 CPC was also upheld and, consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 7. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court/appellate court are contrary to the record of the case. Both the courts below have not examined the issues involved in the right perspective and the appeal involves substantial question of law and, therefore, the same be admitted. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the findings recorded by both the courts below are findings of fact and do not call for any interference in the second appeal. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the judgments passed by both the courts below along-with the record of both the courts below. 10. The courts below have thoroughly and critically examined the evidence available on record and have recorded concurrent findings regarding the nature of possession of the plaintiffs and has consequently passed the decree for injunction. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiffs proved the sale deed in their favour, the decree passed in their favour and possession received in pursuance to the said decree along-with the fact that the appointment of receiver under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was revoked by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur and on the other hand, the appellant failed to produce any document worth the name to contradict either the title of the plaintiffs and/or their possession. The objection raised was that without culmination of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the plaintiffs cannot claim any right, whereas, it was proved on record that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in fact culminated and the receiver was withdrawn by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur. 11. In view of the above state of oral and documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the findings so as to give rise any substantial question of law in the appeal.Consequently, there is no substance in this appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******