ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This is plaintiff's second appeal assailing the judgments dated 17.01.2006 and 3.7.2015 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was concurrently dismissed. 2. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction asserting that he was in possession of a property measuring 19 x 9 sq. ft. situated in the boundaries mentioned in para 1 of the plaint for long. He got a commercial premises constructed over the said property. He deposited sale consideration of Rs. 181/- with the Gram Panchayat, who issued patta dated 19.11.2001 in his favour. The Gram Panchayat without notice cancelled the patta by order dated 26.6.2004 and the defendants especially Ashok Kumar, defendant No. 3 was adamant to evict the plaintiff-appellant from the said property. Defendant No. 1 - Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in the written statement pleaded that patta was lawfully issued to the plaintiff, but it had to be cancelled pursuant to the order of the Development Officer. Defendant No. 3 - Ashok Kumar, the main contesting respondent alleged certain irregularities in the process of issue of patta. He admitted possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land, but contended that it was permissive possession and also filed counter claim contending that plaintiff had no right or title over the disputed land, which was, in fact, part of the ancestral residential plot of the defendant. As per family settlement, this land came to the share of his father Radhey Shyam and after his death to the share of defendant No. 3. He constructed rooms and shop on the aforesaid land in 1980 and used the same till April, 2003 for storage of fodder and grains etc. Plaintiff had made use of this land with his permission for storage of fodder for his cattle and agreed to handover the possession back soon after the fodder was consumed. The plaintiff in connivance with the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bansoor got a illegal patta issued in his favour on 19.11.2001. Thereupon defendant made a complaint to the District Collector on 18.7.2003 and after thorough enquiry, the patta was cancelled. Plaintiff did not file appeal against the order of cancellation of patta. He did not even implead Collector, Alwar or Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bansoor as defendants to the suit. Thereupon defendant made a complaint to the District Collector on 18.7.2003 and after thorough enquiry, the patta was cancelled. Plaintiff did not file appeal against the order of cancellation of patta. He did not even implead Collector, Alwar or Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bansoor as defendants to the suit. Plaintiff did not serve a notice under Section 109 of the Panchayati Raj Act prior to filing of the suit. The trial curt framed eight issues and eventually by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, but decreed the counter claim of the defendant No. 3 declaring him owner of the disputed shop/land and also held him entitle to recover possession of the same. The aforesaid judgment dated 17.10.2006 has been affirmed by the first appellate court by judgment dated 3.7.2015. 3. Shri Vikas Kabra, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that plaintiff has evidently proved his title and possession over the property in dispute since long back. The electricity connection in the name of plaintiff's father alone can establish the title of the plaintiff over the property in dispute and long possession. The Gram Panchayat had issued the patta in favour of plaintiff after following due and proper procedure provided under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and respective rules thereunder on payment of sale consideration of Rs. 181. The Gram Panchayat without notice cancelled the patta by order dated 26.6.2004, for which the Gram Panchayat, Bansoor itself is not competent. It is submitted that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have categorically discarded the documentary evidence EX. A1 and Ex. A2, which are unstamped and unregistered document. However, the unstamped and unregistered documents are admissible in evidence. Thus the finding on Issue No. 6 is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court failed to consider the evidence of witnesses produced by the defendant itself. It is submitted that Ram Singh (DW. 2), Girraj (DW. 3) and Shaitan Singh (DW. 4) in their statements and also cross examination categorically deposed that they have no information about the year of construction of shop. They even do not have any information about any understanding or communication arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. It is submitted that Ram Singh (DW. 2), Girraj (DW. 3) and Shaitan Singh (DW. 4) in their statements and also cross examination categorically deposed that they have no information about the year of construction of shop. They even do not have any information about any understanding or communication arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. The learned trial court as well as appellate court have given unnecessary weightage to the uncorroborated statement of DW. 1 alone and erroneously decreed the counter claim of the defendant. It is contended that the learned trial court as well as appellate court have committed serious error of law and facts in holding that there is no evidence to show that disputed property was owned and constructed by plaintiff and his ancestors. The trial court further erred in holding that no evidence has come on record to show that as to how plaintiff came in title and possession of the said property. In this connection, the courts below have misread and misconstrued the statement of Mukesh Kumar (PW. 1) and plaintiff's other witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has come to a very strange conclusion that the property in dispute has been covered with the other properties of the defendant, thus property in dispute also belongs to the defendant. It is submitted that the learned trial court has adjudicated the dispute prevailing on the principles of "Preponderances of Possibilities", according to which also the evidence of the plaintiff is near to truth and the defendant has manipulated the entire material on record. Thus the finding of trial court on Issue No. 6 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. It is submitted that while adjudicating Issue No. 1, both the courts below have failed to consider the pleadings of the plaintiff that the impugned actions of the Gram Panchayat were under challenge not of Vikas Adhikari. Therefore, he remained unnecessary to be impleaded in the suit. Thus, the finding on Issue No. 2 as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Therefore, he remained unnecessary to be impleaded in the suit. Thus, the finding on Issue No. 2 as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure has a wide and vast power to adjudicate and settle the rights of the parties to lis, irrespective of other remedies availed or not availed, provided under the Special Legislations. It is also submitted that neither under the Code of Civil Procedure, nor under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, adjudication of title over the property in dispute is barred in any manner. 8. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgements, it is evident that the plaintiff even though in his cross examination has stated that the disputed shop was situated on the land of Gram Panchayat and that his father had possession over that land since 1977-78 and constructed the shop in 1983-84, but no such plea was taken by him either in his plaint or in reply to the counter claim set up by the defendant No. 3. On the other hand, the defendant No. 3 in his pleadings as also in his statement has asserted that the shop was constructed by him in 1980. He has produced Ex. A1 and Ex. A2, the deeds of family settlement/partition which were not accepted as admissible in evidence because in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, they were not registered, but defendant appeared as DW. 1 and has asserted that the land of the shop was part of their original shop, which came to the share of his father Radhey Shyam Mishra in the partition, which took place between his father and his uncles. He denied the suggestion that the land was a public land. When he learnt on 12.5.2003 that plaintiff had got a patta prepared of this land, he immediately made a complaint to the Collector. Ram Singh (DW. 2) has asserted that defendant No. 3 Ashok Kumar was in possession of the disputed shop about 2-2 1/2 three years ago and used the same to store fodder for the cattle. He (this witness) and Girraj had worked for construction of that shop for about 8-10 days as helpers and Jai Dayal was mason. Girraj (DW. Ram Singh (DW. 2) has asserted that defendant No. 3 Ashok Kumar was in possession of the disputed shop about 2-2 1/2 three years ago and used the same to store fodder for the cattle. He (this witness) and Girraj had worked for construction of that shop for about 8-10 days as helpers and Jai Dayal was mason. Girraj (DW. 3) has also supported his statement stating that he was working as labourer and that he and Ram Singh has worked for 8-10 days for construction of that shop. Shaitan Singh (DW. 4) has proved that shop was constructed over 25-26 years ago. The land on three sides of the shop belonged to defendant No. 3 - Ashok Kumar, who used the same for storage of fodder for about 2-3 three years. 9. Plaintiff-Appellant Mukesh Kumar Mishra appeared as PW. 1 on the other hand has pleaded that this land was his own and that his father had very old possession over it. In cross examination, he has asserted that the land belonged to Gram Panchayat, which was in possession of his father since 1977-78. He raised the construction of shop in 1983-84 earlier it was having kachcha chappar. In cross-examination he failed to give name of any mason/labourer who constructed the shop. He admitted that it was surrounded by the land of defendant No. 3 on all three sides. He failed to give the date on which he applied to the Gram Panchayat for issuance of patta. Rati Ram (PW. 2) has stated that plaintiff Mukesh was owner of the shop. Mehar Chand (PW. 3) has also supported the claim of the plaintiff that plaintiff got the shop constructed. Banshi Ram (PW. 4) also supported his case and sated that the shop used to be run by father of plaintiff and it was constructed about 20 years ago. 10. The learned trial court has noted that plaintiff failed to cross examine the witnesses DW. 1, DW. 2 and DW. 3 as to the boundaries of the shop. In fact, DW. 1 has proved the boundaries indicated in the plaint and has also proved the visual site plan Ex. A4. PW. 2 and PW. 4 in cross examination also have admitted the correctness of the aforesaid boundaries. Even the plaintiff in his cross examination admitted such boundaries. 2 and DW. 3 as to the boundaries of the shop. In fact, DW. 1 has proved the boundaries indicated in the plaint and has also proved the visual site plan Ex. A4. PW. 2 and PW. 4 in cross examination also have admitted the correctness of the aforesaid boundaries. Even the plaintiff in his cross examination admitted such boundaries. The trial court found lot of variations between the pleadings and the proof produced by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the trial court has found the pleadings as also the evidence produced by the defendant more convincing, confident and inspiring. The appellate court in appeal thoroughly scrutinized the findings recorded by the trial court. Both the courts have noted that no sale consideration was proved to have been passed on for issuance of patta by Gram Panchayat. While the plaintiff has produced the notice allegedly issued to him by Gram Panchayat Bansoor (Ex. 5, 16 and 17), but no receipt of the deposit of the sale consideration has been produced, nor it has been pleaded nor otherwise proved as to when the sale consideration was deposited. The Development Officer has cancelled the patta Ex. 3 after enquiry precisely on the basis that the said patta was issued without any sale consideration and without any resolution of the Gram Panchayat. The record of the Gram Panchayat thereabout was also not available. The appellate court rather reversed the findings of the trial court as to the admissibility of the unregistered family settlement/partition deed Ex. A1 and A2 by relying on judgment of this Court in Ras Bihari & Anr. v. Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sawaimadhopur & Anr. wherein it has been held that a family settlement even if unregistered and unstamped can be held admissible in evidence. 11. In view of totality of circumstances and concurrent finding recorded by the learned court below, the appeal cannot be said to raise any question of law much less any substantial question of law. The appeal being devoid of merits is therefore dismissed.