JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. Having lost before the two learned Courts below, the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellant-defendant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand, in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, against the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2015 passed by the learned Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Appeal No. 27/2013 "Nagar Palika, Rajsamand v. Pradeep Kumar Paliwal", by which, the learned First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal of the defendant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajsamand in Civil Original Suit No. 06/2007 "Pradeep Kumar Paliwal v. Nagar Palika, Rajsamand" by which, the learned Trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Pradeep Kumar Paliwal and restrained the present appellant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plot of land in question situated at Jal Chakki, Kankroli owned by the plaintiff. 2. 2. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2013 are quoted below for ready reference:- ^^17- bl laca/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd rudh la[;k ,d o nks ds fuLrkj.k ds nkSjku lg lkfcr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe oknh ds firk j?kqukFk oYn ij'kqjke ds uke vkaofVr iV~Vs'kqnk LokfeRo vkf/kiR; dh Hkfe gS ftls Lo;a izfroknh us viuh ftjg ds nkSjku Lohdkj fd;k gSA mDr rudh;kr ds laca/k esa izfroknh dk ;g dFku jgk gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe orZeku esa vkjkth uaå 99 gksdj jkT; ljdkj ds uke ntZ gS ysfdu rudh la[;k ,d o nks ds fuLrkj.k ds nkSjku ;g lkfcr gks pqdk gS fd vkå uaå 99 ds lsVyesaV ds iwoZ vkåuaå 88 o vkåuaå 89 Fkh ftldh Hkwfe oknh ds firk j?kqukFk oYn ij'kqjke ds uke [kkrs esa ntZ FkhA oknh ds firk ds uke vkoafVr iV~Vs'kqnk Hkwfe ds ikl gh mn;iqj&ukFk}kjk tkus okys jkLrk fLFkr gS ftlls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd oknxzLr Hkwfe jkLra dh Hkwfe gks ftldk lkoZtfud mi;ksx gks jgh gksA bl laca/k esa izfroknh dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gSa ftlls ;g lkfcr gks fd oknxzLr LFky dk lkoZtfud mi;ksx miHkksx jkLrs ds :i esa gks jgk gksA izfroknh dh vksj ls ek= ;g vfHkopu jgk gS fd oknxzLr LFky ij gSM iai [kqnk gqvk gS ysfdu bl laca/k esa oknh dh vksj ls izfroknh ds vf/koDrk }kjk dh xbZ ftjg ds nkSjku oknh us Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd esjh tehu esa gSaM iai [kqnk gqvk gS tks esjh lgefr ls [kqnk gqvk gSA izfroknh dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ vfHkopu ugha jgk gS fd mDr gSaM iai orZeku esa pkyw gks rFkk oknxzLr LFky dk vke jkLrs ds :i esa vke yksxksa }kjk lkoZtfud mi;ksx miHkksx esa fy;k tk jgk gksA gkykafd izfroknh dh vksj ls tks tekcanh is'k dh xbZ gS mlesa Hkh vkjkth uacj 99 dh Hkwfe vkcknh esa ntZ gksus ek= dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS ftldh lEiw.kZ Hkwfe jkLrs ds :i esa gks bl laca/k esa dksbZ ntZ ugha fd;k x;k gSA izfroknh dh vksj ls vU; ,slh dksbZ ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gks fd oknxzLr LFky dk jkLrs ds :i esa lkoZtfud mi;ksx miHkksx fd;k tk jgk gks vFkok rudh la[;k ,d o nks ds fuLrkj.k ds nkSjku Hkh ;g lkfcr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd oknxzLr LFky dh Hkwfe lkoZtfud jkLrs dh Hkwfe u gksdj oknh ds firk j?kqukFk oYn ij'kqjke ds iV~Vs'kqnk LokfeRo vkf/kiR; dh Hkwfe gSA vkns'k 20- vr% oknh iznhi dqekj ikyhoky firk Lo0 j?kqukFk th ikyhoky] d`".k dq.M] ukFk}kjk ftyk jktlean dh vksj ls izfroknh uxjikfydk] jktleUn }kjk Jh vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk] jktlean ds fo:) izLrqr okn ckcr~ LFkkbZ o vkKkid O;kns'k Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd oknxzLr LFky dh Hkwfe lkoZtfud jkLrs dh Hkwfe u gksdj oknh ds firk j?kqukFk oyn ij'kqjke ds iV~Vs'kqnk LokfeRo vkf/kiR; dh Hkwfe gS tks oknh ds LokfeRo vkf/kiR; dh gksdj iq'rSuh tk;nkn gSA mDr Hkw[k.M esa izfroknh fdlh izdkj dk O;o/kku mRiUu u djs] u gh mDr oknxzLr Hkw[k.M esa izfroknh oknh dh vuqefr fcuk dksbZ ifjorZu djs o vU; fdlh ls djkosaA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA inuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ eqrhZc gksA ,lMh@& cqykdh nkl O;kl vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k oå[kå jktlean** 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013 of the learned Trial Court, the defendant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand, namely, Civil Appeal No. 27/2013 "Nagar Palika, Rajsamand v. Pradeep Kumar Paliwal" which came to be dismissed on 03.12.2015. 4. The relevant extract of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court, for affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013 of the learned Trial Court, in the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2015 are quoted below for ready reference:- ^^bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe oknh ds firk ds }kjk lu~ 1944 esa rRdkyhu fBdkusnkj ls dheru [kjhnh xbZ Hkwfe gS ftlds nf{k.k esa edku cus gq, gS rFkk mDr fookfnr tehu jkLrs dh gksuk lkfcr ugha gks ik;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mHk;i{k dh lk{; dk rqyukRed foospu fd;s tkus ij ;gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe oknh ds LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; dh gS] ftlesa izfroknh dks n[kyankth djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA bl izdkj fo}ku vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k oå[kå jktleUn ds }kjk vius vk{ksfir fu.kZ; esa lgh rkSj ij fook|d la[;k 1 yxk;r 4 dks izR;kFkhZ@oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa gLr{ksi dh dksbZ xqatkb'k ugha gSA Qyr% fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS ,oa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k oå[kå] jktleUn }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh iq"V fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k QyLo:i vihykFkhZ@izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g flfoy vihy vLohd`r dh tkdj [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k oå[kå] jktlean }kjk fu;fer nhokuh izdj.k laå 6@2007 iznhi cuke uxjikfydk esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 29-08-2013 dh ,rn~ }kjk iqf"V dh tkrh gSA vihy U;k;ky; dk vkSipkfjd fMdzh ipkZ ewfrZc gksA mHk;i{k vihy O;; viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA fu.kZ; ds izfr ds lkFk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh vfoyEc izsf"kr dh tkosA ,lMh@& ¼,lådsåtSu½ ftyk U;k;k/kh'k jktleUn** 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below and the reasons given therein, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand, and the same is liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below and the reasons given therein, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the findings cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. The Patta and title of the plaintiff was also well proved before the courts below. 6. The findings, in respect of the plot of land in question, as mentioned above, possessed and owned by the plaintiff-Pradeep Kumar Paliwal and is not a 'public way', are the findings of facts and there is no contra evidence available on record, oral or documentary, led by the appellant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present second appeal of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand is also liable to be dismissed, as the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below do not give rise to any substantial questions of law in the present second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-defendant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand. 7. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the appellant-defendant-Municipal Board, Rajsamand is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned Courts below forthwith.