JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. Heard learned counsels for both the sides and perused the judgment impugned dated 01.12.1993 passed by learned trial Court as also the judgment dated 20.08.2004 passed by learned First Appellate Court whereby, the judgment impugned passed by learned trial Court was upheld. 2. The facts of the case in brief giving rise to this second appeal are that on 04.08.1979, suit was filed by the plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal claiming the relief that decree of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from making any encroachment on the disputed plot by way of constructing road and drainage thereon. Defendant contested the suit claiming that disputed plot belongs to him and not to plaintiff. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, as many as, 8 issues were framed including the relief clause. After recording evidence of both the sides and giving opportunity of hearing to them, all the issues were decided by the learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff/respondents and the permanent injunction, as prayed by the plaintiff was granted in his favour. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, defendant 'Nagar Praishad, Bhilwara preferred first appeal which was decided by the judgment dated 25.08.2004 and the appeal was dismissed, while maintaining the judgment passed by learned trial Court. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant 'Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara against the concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued that the evidence given by DW-1 Beni Madhav Singh has not been properly considered by the learned Courts below wherein, he has stated that the plaintiff has encroached upon the land of 'public way'; he applied for permission for construction over that land which was also denied by the Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara. He submits that the appellant is trying to protect the 'public way' from being encroached upon by the plaintiff. Learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence properly. Hence, the judgments of the Courts below are required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff has argued that both the Courts below have arrived at the concurrent findings, not only in respect of the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed plot but also as regards title thereon in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff has argued that both the Courts below have arrived at the concurrent findings, not only in respect of the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed plot but also as regards title thereon in favour of the plaintiff. He has further argued that the finding has been arrived at on the basis of oral evidence as also the judgments passed in favour of the plaintiff way back on 05.06.1926 by District Court, Bhilwara (Ex. 2) and the judgment dated 27.12.1965 passed by City Magistrate, Bhilwara. It has also been contended that the learned First Appellate Court is the final court for the finding on facts and the appellant is not entitled to raise the objection regarding the concurrent finding on facts in the second appeal. 7. In view of the arguments advanced by both the sides, I have perused the record of the case as also the impugned judgments. Both the Courts below have scanned the evidence available on record, oral as well as documentary, and have come to the conclusion that the disputed plot was purchased by plaintiff through sale-deed (Ex. 1) dated 04.01.1968 from Sagar Chand, who happens to be disciple (Chela) of Lal Chand. Judgments passed by the District Court, Bhilwara on 05.06.1926 (Ex. 2) and passed by learned City Magistrate, Bhilwara on 26.10.1965 have also been relied upon by the Courts below which support the claim laid by the plaintiff/respondents in respect of the disputed plot. All these documents are very old and reliable. These documents prove the factum of possession of plaintiff over disputed plot. The witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff have also stated that there was no 'public way' existing between the Shahar Kot (city boundary wall) and the disputed plot. 8. So far as the evidence of DW-1 Beni Madhav Singh is concerned, that has also been discussed by both the Courts below, who has admitted to have seen the disputed plot only 7-8 years ago and it has been inferred by the Courts below that the witness is not fully aware of the location of the disputed plot and the history of facts relating thereto. I have also perused the cross-examination of DW-1 Beni Madhav Singh wherein, he has shown his ignorance as regards most of the questions put to him in respect of the facts relevant to the disputed plot. I have also perused the cross-examination of DW-1 Beni Madhav Singh wherein, he has shown his ignorance as regards most of the questions put to him in respect of the facts relevant to the disputed plot. So, the findings arrived at by the Courts below cannot be faulted with on this aspect. 9. Moreover, learned First Appellate Court is the final Court on the finding of facts. The judgment of the First Appellate Court can only be challenged on the basis of perversity in its findings. But on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that there appears no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurvachan Kaur v. Salikram (Dead) through LRs reported in (2010) 15 SCC 530, there is no occasion to interfere in the findings of learned Courts below. 10. So far as the factum of possession over the disputed plot of plaintiff is concerned, it is found proved on the basis of Ex. 1 (Sale-deed), Ex. 2 (judgment dated 05.06.1926), Ex. 3 (judgment dated 27.12.1965) and the oral evidence also. Insufficiency of Court fees cannot be a substantial question of law to be raised in second appeal for the first time. It was never raised by the appellant earlier. 11. Three substantial questions of law have been proposed by the learned counsel for the appellant in this memo of appeal. On perusal, it appears that none of them is required to be framed in light of the discussions made above. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been observed in the analysis of the evidence done by both the Courts below. 12. In view of above, the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also not required to be allowed as the appeal has not even been admitted. Hence the same is also rejected. 13. Resultantly, this second appeal does not deserve admission and the same is hereby dismissed.