JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC to challenge the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2010 passed by District Judge, Sirohi (for short, 'learned first appellate Court'), whereby learned first appellate Court has dismissed his appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sheoganj (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. The facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are that at the threshold appellant-plaintiff laid a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the learned trial Court. In the suit, it is, inter-alia, averred that a plot situated behind the back side of Arathwara Road Maliyon-Ki-Gali is owned by him and he is also in possession of the said plot. It is specifically pleaded in the plaint that the said plot is in possession of his ancestors since long. The requisite details about the measurement and neighbourhood of the plot were mentioned in the plaint. In order to get a valid title, i.e., issuance of Patta, as per the appellant-plaintiff, he laid an application before the first respondent. In the plaint, it is also averred that second respondent has unauthorisedly trespassed towards the eastern side of his house which is meant for his ingress and egress to his house. It is also averred that the second respondent has also attempted to open his door towards that way which has narrowed down the way, which the appellant is using for last 40-50 years. Regarding the land in question, the appellant has asserted that he is entitled to be declared as owner on the plea of adverse possession. Highlighting the overt act of the second respondent, appellant-plaintiff has also pleaded that he made all efforts to apprise the higher authorities to remove his encroachment on the said land but all his efforts proved abortive. It is also stated in the plaint that he has also obtained water and electricity connection after obtaining requisite No Objection Certificate. A fact that before instituting the suit, a notice under Section 109 of the Panchayat Act was served, is also incorporated in the pleadings. 3. Respondent-Gram Panchayat contested the suit and filed its written statement. In its return, the first respondent has alleged that the claim of appellant for ownership on the land in question is not tenable for the simple reason that this land is a part of public way. 3. Respondent-Gram Panchayat contested the suit and filed its written statement. In its return, the first respondent has alleged that the claim of appellant for ownership on the land in question is not tenable for the simple reason that this land is a part of public way. A specific plea is also incorporated in the written statement that appellant-plaintiff has trespassed on the said land without there being any permission of the Gram Panchayat. As regards claim of the appellant for issuance of Patta, it is specifically averred in the return by the Gram Panchayat that a decision has been taken for not granting Patta to the appellant and further Gram Panchayat has decided by its proposal not to issue Patta regarding the Bara to second respondent for the reason that 11 K.V. High Tension electricity line is to pass over the said Bara. As regards opening of door by second respondent towards western side of Bara, the Gram Panchayat has taken the stand that permission has been granted to second respondent for the same. Adverting to so-called old possession of the appellant, Gram Panchayat has made a categorical statement that appellant has encroached over a land measuring 854.37 sq.ft. within last 2-3 years and his possession is that of a trespasser. The jurisdiction of the Court is also questioned by the Gram Panchayat. 4. The second respondent also filed its written statement denying all the allegations. As regards possession of the appellant, the second respondent has made a categorically statement in the written statement that it is illegal and unauthorized and the assertion of plaintiff about possession of last 4 to 5 decades is absolutely false and misleading. It is also denied that he has opened door towards the way of the plaintiff or has tried to narrow the same. A specific case is set out by the second respondent that the whole attempt of the appellant is to grab the land of public way for which he has no right at all. The existence of door from the western side of the plot towards street, as per second respondent existed since long and therefore craved for dismissal of the suit by imposing exemplary costs. 5. Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, framed two issues for determination and parties led their evidence. 6. The existence of door from the western side of the plot towards street, as per second respondent existed since long and therefore craved for dismissal of the suit by imposing exemplary costs. 5. Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, framed two issues for determination and parties led their evidence. 6. After conclusion of evidence, learned trial Court decided Issue No.2, relating to jurisdiction of the Court against the respondent. The finding on Issue No.1 resulted in dismissal of the suit against the Gram Panchayat. However, learned trial Court allowed perpetual injunction against respondent No.2 for not raising any construction. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of learned trial Court, appellant approached learned first appellate Court and the learned first appellate Court reexamined the matter threadbare and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and also thoroughly examined the record of the case. 9. After examining the matter in its entirety, in my opinion, both the Courts below have concurrently decided the matter with due application of mind favouring the cause of the appellant partially. The conclusions drawn by both the Courts below, on the basis of appreciation of evidence, are per se just and reasonable and the same cannot be faulted. 10. It is trite that concurrent finding fact is not liable to be interfered with while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC unless it is shown that finding is perverse, legally infirm or founded on misconstruction of the evidence available on record. In totality, I am unable to subscribe the view that any of the eventualities is available in the instant appeal. It goes without saying that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that other view is possible, in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction, it is not desirable to substitute the said view at the cost of upsetting the view of the first appellate Court, which is final Court of fact. Moreover in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case when the entire claim of the appellant is based on his so-called possession on a land which is part of the public way, the applicability of doctrine of adverse possession is obviously ruled out. Moreover in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case when the entire claim of the appellant is based on his so-called possession on a land which is part of the public way, the applicability of doctrine of adverse possession is obviously ruled out. In all fairness, on delving deep into the matter, I am unable to lay my hand on any questions of law much less substantial question of law involved in this appeal requiring adjudication. The substantial questions of law sought to be canvassed by the appellant are not of substance within the periphery of Section 100 CPC. 11. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate Court and consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.