JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Original suit no. 99/1979 (Jai Nath Singh v. Ghurahu Sahu) was filed for the relief of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs and defendants fourth set (defendant no. 5 & 6) against the defendant no.-1 only. Plaint case in brief was that plaintiffs are owner in possession of disputed house and defendant no.-1 had no right title or concerned with this property, but he is unauthorisedly trying to interfere in their possession. Therefore the defendant be restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering in plaintiffs' possession of disputed property, and if it is found that plaintiffs are not in possession of any portion of property, then the same be delivered to plaintiffs and no. 5 and 6. 3. In original suit only contesting defendant was defendant no.-1 who had filed written-statement and pleaded that sale-deed mentioned by plaintiffs regarding purchase of disputed property were never executed and were without consideration. This plaint averment is incorrect that Ram Padarath had constructed the house of disputed place. They further pleaded that they are owner in possession of disputed property. For this property, original suit no. 699/1946 was filed by the then Zamindar against defendant no.-1, in which defendant no.-1 had given nazrana and compromise the matter and suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs' suit is based on incorrect facts and is liable to be dismissed. 4. After framing issues, accepting evidences of parties and affording opportunity of hearing to them, the Court of Civil Judge, Azamgarh had decreed the suit for the relief claimed by its judgment dated 6.1.1981, and held that plaintiffs as well as defendants 4th set will get possession of house in suit and defendant no.-1 is restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering with possession of plaintiffs and defendants 4th set on the house in suit and the ahata shown with letters 'E,B,C,F' in plaint map. In this judgment, trial court had given finding that Jagarnath was owner in possession of house etc. which stood on the site of house in suit, as alleged by plaintiffs. Trial court had also held that Smt. Biranjiya, from whom the defendant no.-1 claimed purchased the disputed property, was not owner or was in possession of house etc. In this judgment, trial court had given finding that Jagarnath was owner in possession of house etc. which stood on the site of house in suit, as alleged by plaintiffs. Trial court had also held that Smt. Biranjiya, from whom the defendant no.-1 claimed purchased the disputed property, was not owner or was in possession of house etc. which stood at disputed place, and she did not transferred the same through any unregistered sale-deed to defendant no.-1. It was also held by trial court that unregistered sale-deed dated 14.1.1940 as alleged by defendant no.-1, is forged and fictitious ante-dated document. The trial court had also held that Jagarnath had transferred this disputed property to Ganpat who transferred the same to defendant no.-2 through registered sale-deed dated 25.3.1943 and put him in possession thereon. Then Ram Padarath, father of defendant no.-2 had transferred this house to plaintiff and put him possession by sale-deed dated 29.8.1978 executed by defendant no.-2. Thus the trial court had given finding that plaintiff is owner in possession of disputed property and defendant no.-1 has no right, title or interest in it and the defendants' pleading are incorrect. 5. Against the judgment of trial court, the Civil Appeal no. 337/1992 was preferred which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 6.2.2016 of Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act), Azamgarh. In this judgment the first appellate court had considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, framed points of determination and decided all those points in favour of plaintiffs-respondents and against defendants-appellants. First appellate court had also independently appreciated the evidences and held that defendant no.-1 had taken the self contradictory pleas in his defence and could not prove the same. First appellate court had appreciated the evidences of the parties and thereafter held that plaintiffs had proved his case of ownership by sale-deed dated 29.8.78. With these findings, first appellate court had dismissed the first appeal. 6. Against the judgments of trial court as well the first appellate court, present Second Appeal has been preferred by legal representatives of defendant no.-1 of original suit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that trial court had framed issues under Order 41, Rule-25 CPC but had not afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties on these issues, and had erroneously decided the appeal without proper opportunity of hearing. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that trial court had framed issues under Order 41, Rule-25 CPC but had not afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties on these issues, and had erroneously decided the appeal without proper opportunity of hearing. He further pleaded that burden of proof of proving his case was on the plaintiffs but lower courts had relied on only evidence adduced by defendant. His contention was that plaintiff had not proved his own case, and his case cannot be decreed on the basis of discrepancies in evidence of defendants. He further pleaded that judgments of trial court and of the first appellate court was erroneous and pereverse, therefore, appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 8. These contentions of learned counsel for the appellants were refuted by respondents side who contended that trial court and the first appellate court had not only considered the evidence of defendant, but also meticulously considered the evidence of plaintiffs and found that plaintiff had proved his case of ownership and possession. He contended that both the lower courts had meticulously appreciated the points of defence raised by defendant no.-1 regarding unregistered sale-deed allegedly executed by Smt. Biranjiya, the effect of judgment of original suit no. 669/1946 and the alleged admission of defendant no.-2 Dilip Chand in favour of defendant no.-1 and decided these points against defendant no.-1. He further contended that plaintiffs have proved their case on the basis of their own evidence and registered sale-deed which are still existing and were never challenged. There is no error in judgment of lower courts, therefore appeal should be dismissed. 9. So far as first main point relating to framing of issues by fist appellate court is concerned, a perusal of judgment of first appellate court makes it clear that this contention is factually incorrect. No new issue was framed by first appellate court under Rule 25 Order 41. In fact after giving the description of fact and issues framed of trial court, the first appellate court had framed five 'points of determination' as required under Rule 31 of Order XLI; and these were specifically mentioned by words “Appeal Bindu” by first appellate court. These were points of determination framed under Rule 31 Order 41, and were properly discussed and decided by first appellate court. These were points of determination framed under Rule 31 Order 41, and were properly discussed and decided by first appellate court. The findings on these points of determination are based on appreciation of evidence and consideration of arguments raised by parties, and these were decided in favour of respondents and against appellants. 10. These contentions of learned counsel for the appellants is correct that plaintiffs had to prove their own case and their case cannot be decided on ground that the defendants' case is not proved. But in present matter, trial court as well as first appellate court has meticulously scrutinised the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter held that on the fact and evidences, plaintiffs had proved their case. Trial court had given finding that house constructed by Ram Padarath is present on disputed property, and said house was transferred to other persons and later on came in ownership of plaintiffs-respondents through registered sale-deed dated 29.08.1979. This was not a question of law but was question fact for which first appellate court had also appreciated the evidences and gave its own finding regarding ownership and possession of plaintiffs-respondents, by concurring with finding of trial court. 11. It is a fact that both the courts had also considered the arguments placed by appellant side regarding alleged unregistered sale-deed executed by Smt. Biranjiya in favour of defendant no.-1. But that appreciation of defendants' evidence was proper and necessary for deciding the matter on merit. On one hand both the lower courts had found that plaintiffs have proved their case on the basis of evidence, and on the other hand these Courts had given specific finding of fact that unregistered alleged sale-deed executed by Smt. Biranjiya was forged documents and no such sale-deed was executed. 12. So far as the contention of appellant side regrading decree passed in original suit no. 669/1946 is concerned, admittedly that judgment was not a judgment in rem. That dispute arose between defendant no.-1 and Zamindar of the area which was decided between them on the basis of alleged compromise. That judgment cannot have any effect on rights of third party; and the plaintiffs-respondents in present case were not a party in that proceeding. Apart from this contention of learned counsel for the respondents is not found unacceptable that it is not proved that disputed property of original suit no. That judgment cannot have any effect on rights of third party; and the plaintiffs-respondents in present case were not a party in that proceeding. Apart from this contention of learned counsel for the respondents is not found unacceptable that it is not proved that disputed property of original suit no. 669/1946 was the same which was disputed in present matter. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the case of Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and Another v. Bajrang Lal, 2014 (3) AWC 2847 (SC) and relied on this observation of Apex Court that there is no prohibition for the High Court to entertain the second appeal even on question of fact when factual findings are found to be perverse. I am in agreement with this observation of Apex Court, but this is not going to help the appellants in this particular case. As discussed above, the findings of facts given by trial court as well as the first appellate court, which are concurrent are also apparently acceptable and correct. There is no infirmity or perversity in it. So such findings should not be interfered by this court. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant also sited case of Ram pravesh and others v. Ram Bilas and others, 2015(2) RJ 1231, in which Single Bench of this Court had held that being final court of fact, the first appellate court must not mere concur with finding of trial court, but should record its own reasons by its decision on each point independently. This law point if also acceptable in principle, but in present case it is not going to help the appellant's side. As stated above, the first appellate court had independently framed five points of determination under Order 41, Rule 31 , which were on several points different from the issues framed by trial court and thereafter the lower appellate court had appreciated the evidences in the light of those points and gave its own findings. It is correct that in first appeal, first appellate court had given more emphasis on discussing the defences raised by the defendant-appellants and the defenses of appellants were properly appreciated and discussed. But the evidences and arguments of plaintiff-respondents were also discussed and findings were accordingly given by first appellate court on the basis of evidence. 15. The dispute relating to ownership and possession of disputed property situated in abadi. But the evidences and arguments of plaintiff-respondents were also discussed and findings were accordingly given by first appellate court on the basis of evidence. 15. The dispute relating to ownership and possession of disputed property situated in abadi. In fact, this dispute does not relate to any question of law, but relate to question of fact that could be decided on the basis of evidences, only as has been done by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. The findings in this regard given by both the courts were based on proper appreciation of evidences after considering the case of both the parties and these findings are apparently not erroneous. There appears no infirmity or perversity that may require interference in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidence. 16. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court are well reasoned, and are based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidences on record. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law was involved in the case before the High Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs can be sustained. 17. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.