JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Shahpura, District Bhilwara, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed and judgment & decree dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments that the suit property was owned by Mst. Chand Bai, who had purchased it vide registered sale deed dated 12.10.1945. The said Chand Bai executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff, which was registered with Sub-Registrar, Shahpura and the said Chand Bai died on 27.10.1996. The plaintiff was in 2 possession of a kitchen and a room attached to the said kitchen, though the premises consists of five rooms, a kitchen and a shop, rest of which is in possession of the defendants and on account of misbehaviour of the defendants, he had put locks on the part of the premises, which was in his possession and was staying in a rented accommodation. 3. With the above averments it would prayed that the respondent be restrained from interfering in the possession of the room and a kitchen and if plaintiff is dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, the same be handed over back to him. 4. The suit was resisted by the appellants-defendants on the ground that Chand Bai was Benami owner of the house as the same was purchased by Kishan Lal, her husband, who had mortgaged the property with Kallan Khan and the said Kallan Khan after receiving the mortgage money from the defendants have handed over the possession to them. The validity of the Will was also questioned. It was submitted that the kitchen and room have been locked by the plaintiff after leaving some belongings therein. 5. The trial court framed seven issues. The evidence was led by the plaintiff and the defendants. 6. The validity of the Will was also questioned. It was submitted that the kitchen and room have been locked by the plaintiff after leaving some belongings therein. 5. The trial court framed seven issues. The evidence was led by the plaintiff and the defendants. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the property belonged to Chand Bai, Will dated 4.1.1996 was executed by Chand Bai and was got registered, as the so-called mortgage deed was unregistered and unstamped, the same does not effect the property and even otherwise the property belonged to Chand Bai; the plaintiff was in possession 3 of a kitchen and the room in the said property and therefore, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and issued injunction as prayed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed regular first appeal before the appellate court, which after hearing the parties and analysing the evidence available on record and the submissions made in this regard, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment passed by both the Courts below. 9. The findings recorded by both the Courts below on the issues relating to the validity of the Will and possession of the plaintiff are pure findings of fact and learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show as to how the said findings were perverse. 10. It was submitted that as it is admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff was not staying in the said premises and had simply put locks on the kitchen and the room after leaving few of his belongings therein, as he was not in possession of the suit property, the suit itself was not maintainable. 11. For the purpose of establishing possession, it is not necessary that the party should remain physically present at the suit premises, the very fact that it is admitted by the appellants, which fact has been noticed by both the Courts below, that the plaintiff had put his locks on the kitchen and one room and his few belongs were lying therein proves beyond any doubt plaintiff's possession. To be in possession necessary means to 4 be in control of the premises and to put it to use as and when desired. To be in possession necessary means to 4 be in control of the premises and to put it to use as and when desired. The very fact that locks have been put by the plaintiff shows / reflects his possession and therefore, the plea raised by the learned counsel has no basis. 12. Accordingly, as both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the appellants, no substantial question of law arises, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 13. The stay application is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******