JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. Original suit no. 525 of 2004 (Balley and others Vs. Om Prakash and others) were filed with averment that plaintiffs are owner and bhumidhar in possession of plots no. 777 and 779. Adjacent to the said plots, another plots no. 784 and 1085 of Gaon Sabha are situated. There is a pathway between plots no. 784 and 1085 and defendants nos. 1 to 8 are illegally attempting to occupy plot no. 784 of Gaon Sabha and also trying to construct the pathway and drainage (nala) from plaintiffs' plots no. 777 and 779. Therefore for restraining them, they have filed suit for permanent injunction, in which disputed portion of property was detailed in plaint map by letters A,B,S,D. 2. After accepting written statement, framing issues and accepting adduced evidences, the Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 4 Gautam Budh Nagar had dismissed the original suit with finding that construction of nala has been completed on disputed property and plaintiffs have failed to prove that disputed property detailed in plaint map by letters, A,B,S,D is in their ownership or in their possession, and they have not proved that the said property is situated on plots of plaintiffs. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, civil appeal no. 13 of 2011 (Balley and others Vs. Om Prakash and others) was preferred which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 08.09.2015 of 1st Additional District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. In this judgment, first appellate court had confirmed the finding of fact and also held that plaintiffs/appellants have failed to prove that disputed property belongs to their ownership and in absence of survey, their plots number could not be ascertained. The first appellate court had confirmed the finding of trial court. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court as well first appellate court, plaintiffs of original suit had preferred this second appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that neither trial court nor first appellate court had got the disputed property surveyed, therefore, their judgments are erroneous. He contended that Commissioner report was not properly considered and erroneous judgments were passed because nala (drain) was constructed on the land of plaintiffs. 5. A perusal of the records reveals that this contentions are unacceptable. He contended that Commissioner report was not properly considered and erroneous judgments were passed because nala (drain) was constructed on the land of plaintiffs. 5. A perusal of the records reveals that this contentions are unacceptable. When plaintiffs/appellants had filed suit with specific averement of plots number, then it was their burden and responsibility to prove that disputed property is part of said plots number stated by them. The first appellate court had rightly held that plaintiffs had failed to prove the plots number of disputed property without getting it surveyed. There is no error in said finding. The Commissioner report was properly discussed by the lower courts and after its consideration, and mention in judgment, the lower courts had passed the judgment, but since the said Commissioner report was not relating to survey, therefore, plots number stated in plaint could not be verified. 6. The dispute between the parties in this matter is that whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of disputed plots detailed in plaint map by letters A,B,S,D or not. There is no question of law involved in it. This is a question of fact that can be decided on the basis of evidence, as has been done by the lower court. There has been concurrent and acceptable finding of fact. A perusal of the judgments of trial court and first appellate court reveal that these judgments had been passed after appreciation of all the evidences adduced before it and there are no infirmity or perversity in it. Such concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered by re-appreciation of evidence in second appeal. There appears no question of law, much less a substantial question of law in this case before this Court. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants can be sustained. 7. For the reasons discussed above, and in absence of substantial question of law, this second appeal is dismissed.