JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 16.03.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Deedwana, District - Nagaur, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondents herein was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deedwana, District - Nagaur was set aside and the suit filed by the respondents was decreed. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff Shyamlal (husband/father of the respondents) filed a suit for removal of encroachment, possession and permanent injunction against the appellants, inter alia, with the averments that the land marked A. B. C. D. was of his title possession and 'Pattasud' regarding which a Patta No.44/2, Misal No.150 dated 24.06.1958 was issued by defendant No.1 Sadik, who was the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baliya; the plaintiff according to his convenience constructed three Halls on the eastern side of the land and constructed boundary wall marked A. E. F. D. ad-measuring 128 X 79 feet and left E. B. C. F. ad-measuring 21 X 128 feet open for his personal use for parking vehicles for his salt business and so that the way existing in Khasra No.436 is not obstructed; around 09.10.2005 , the defendants hatched a plan for trespassing on plaintiff's land marked E. B. J. I. and demolished the Gate, Stairs and constructed a new wall and trespassed thereon and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for demolition, possession and injunction against the defendants. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants denying the averments made in the plaint, it was claimed that the disputed land does not belong to the plaintiff and defendants are in possession thereof. The land is part of Khasra No.431, 432, 433, 434 and 435; the Patta being fraudulent has been cancelled and land of the defendants is situated on the Northern side of the plaintiff's land and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed five issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants also two witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. 5. 4. The trial court framed five issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants also two witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the disputed land E.B.J.I. does not belong either to the plaintiff or to the defendants and the same was part of Khasra No.436, which was recorded as 'Rasta'; qua the rest of the land i.e. E. I. J. C. D. A. E. the plaintiff is in possession and based on such finding partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and restrained the defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff's land marked as E. I. J. C. D. A. E. without undertaking due process of law, and rejected rest of the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-respondents filed appeal, wherein the first appellate court after examining the entire record and on coming to the conclusion that the trial court did not consider the documentary and oral evidence available on record and after re-appreciating the same held that in view of Ex.-15 Revenue Map, wherein Khasra No. 436 has been indicated as 'Rasta' and on the Northern side, whereof Khasra No. 431 to 435 were situated and on its Southern side Khasra No. 437 and 438 were situated and the claim of the defendants was that the land comprising Khasra No.431 to 435 is owned by them; further DW-1 Sadik admitted Khasra No. 436 as 'Rasta' and DW- 2 also admitted presence of 'Rasta' in Khasra No. 436, from which, it was apparent that the land in dispute was not a part of Khasra No. 431 to 435. The first appellate court also came to the finding that the total area of land A.B.C.D. was 128 X 100 feet, from which, the plaintiff had constructed boundary wall on land admeasuring 128 X 79 feet and rest 21 X 128 feet land was kept vacant. It was neither the case of the plaintiffs nor of the defendants that the said land formed part of the way i.e. Khasra No. 436, however, the trial court based on conjectures came to the conclusion that the land formed part of the way. 7. It was neither the case of the plaintiffs nor of the defendants that the said land formed part of the way i.e. Khasra No. 436, however, the trial court based on conjectures came to the conclusion that the land formed part of the way. 7. The appellate court also found no substance in the allegation that the Patta (Ex.-2) was fraudulent as in spite of specific averment in the plaint that the Patta was issued by defendant No. 1 Sadik himself, the fact was not denied and only averment made was that the Patta was fraudulent and has been cancelled, though no documentary evidence in this regard was placed on record. Consequently, the first appellate court set aside the decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking demolition of the construction made by the defendants, possession and injunction. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the first appellate court was not justified in reversing the findings on issue No. 1 to 3. The Patta (Ex.-2) was a forged document as no record in this regard was available with the Gram Panchayat. It is further contented that disputed land E. B. J. I. forms part of the appellants' ownership and possession, which was proved on record and, therefore, the first appellate court was not justified in decreeing the suit filed by the respondents. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 10. The outstanding feature, which needs to be noticed in the present case is that the trial court vide its judgment dated 29.10.2010 came to the conclusion that the part of the suit land i.e. E. B. J. I., on which the appellants had trespassed was part of Khasra No.436, which was recorded as 'Rasta' in the Revenue Record and denied relief to the plaintiffs to that extent, however, regarding rest of the land comprised in the Patta (Ex.-2), the relief was granted by the trial court. The consequence of its finding regarding the land E. B. J. I. is that the land was neither owned by the plaintiffs nor by the defendants, on which the defendants had constructed the shops and, consequently, the said Court left it open for the authorities to take action. 11. The consequence of its finding regarding the land E. B. J. I. is that the land was neither owned by the plaintiffs nor by the defendants, on which the defendants had constructed the shops and, consequently, the said Court left it open for the authorities to take action. 11. Interestingly while the plaintiffs-respondents filed first appeal, questioning the finding of the trial court on the said aspect, the defendants-appellants did not question the same either by filing an appeal or by filing cross-objection, resulting in the finding of the trial court regarding the land in dispute not being part of their (defendants') ownership getting confirmed and the same cannot now be questioned by the appellants in this second appeal. Besides the above, the possession of the plaintiffs on part of the land of Patta has been protected by the trial court. 12. The learned first appellate court after thoroughly examining the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that it was not proved on record that the Patta (Ex.-2) issued by defendant No.1 had been cancelled, the disputed land, wherein the appellants have trespassed and raised construction, is a part of the said Patta and was not part of Khasra No.431 to 435, owned by the defendants-appellants and which was situated on the Northern side of Khasra No.436, which was recorded as 'Rasta' in the Revenue Record and the land in dispute was situated at Southern side of Khasra No.436, the said findings besides being findings of fact, the learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any perversity in the said findings recorded by the first appellate court and the first appellate court was, therefore, justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 13. In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******