JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 09.11.2004 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, judgment and decree dated 14.09.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sri Ganganagar has been upheld. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised thus : the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction for removal of wall said to have been constructed unauthorizedly by the defendant; it was claimed that the plaintiff-appellant was owner of house No. 628, 4th Block, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, which was purchased by him by a registered sale deed dated 26.02.1958; it was claimed that plaintiff had constructed nine rooms, out of which, room No. 9 was in the tenancy of defendant-respondent @ Rs. 12/- per month; the respondent had paid rent upto July, 1977 and started raising construction of the disputed wall on 14.08.1977, which led to criminal proceedings, wherein, the plaintiff was acquitted. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant, inter alia, claiming that he was not bound by registered sale deed and claimed the same to be fabricated; the factum of tenancy was denied and it was claimed that the room was constructed by him after taking a part of loan from plaintiff and amount of Rs. 12/- per month was not the rent of the premises, but the same was installment of the loan; it was claimed that no Patta has been issued regarding the disputed premises by the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar in favour of appellant-plaintiff and, therefore, he was not entitled to file the suit. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed three issues, which was decreed by the trial court on 21.08.1982 and the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the appellate court on 01.12.1990, however, in the second appeal, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh trial. 5. After the remand, the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 14.09.1998 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant on coming to the conclusion that the suit property did not belong to the plaintiff as he had failed to prove documents pertaining to his alleged ownership. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal, which was also rejected by the first appellate court. 7. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal, which was also rejected by the first appellate court. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the suit property was not owned by the appellant and that he was not entitled for demolition of the wall in question; both the courts below have not properly examined the evidence available on record, which has led to rendering of incorrect findings and, therefore, the same gives rise to substantial question of law. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The appellant claimed ownership based on a measurement register pertaining to the year 1929, a mortgage said to have been executed by one Sukha in plaintiff's grand-father's favour and a sale deed executed by one Pema Ram in the year 1958; however, the plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence regarding the measurement register pertaining to the year 1929, the mortgage said to have been executed in the year 1947 and right of Pema Ram to execute the sale deed, which was the foundation of the suit and plaintiff's right to the suit property. 10. Besides the above, the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar issued Patta pertaining to the suit property in defendant's favour, which was challenged in another suit, which was rejected by the trial court and first appellate court and the second appeal has also been decided today itself being S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.492/2006, rejecting the contentions raised by the appellant. As such, it cannot be said that the judgments impugned passed by both the courts below call for any interference. 11. The findings recorded by both the courts below are findings of fact and do not give rise to any substantial question of law.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******