JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. 1. Instant Civil Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Ajmer (for short 'the lower appellate court') in Civil Appeal No.121/06 (241/06) whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) City-North, Ajmer (for short 'the trial court' ) in Civil Suit No.129/2003 was set aside and the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction wherein it is stated that the land bearing Khasra No.2931 measuring 1½ Bigha, Nadi, Khasra No.2944 measuring 2¼ Bigha Aabadi and Khasra No. 2934 measuring 1½ Bigha two Biswa Dus Biswansi Pal situated police lines Lohakhan, Ajmer. The same belongs to the ancestors of the plaintiffs and they are in possession of the said property. They grow Water Caltrop (Singhada) crop in the said land. It is also averred in the plaint that they came to know through the news published in the news paper that on the land of the plaintiffs the UIT Ajmer has proposed to construct Ambedkar Research Center and the Officers of the UIT bent upon to lay foundation stone. Therefore, the suit was filed for grant of permanent injunction. 3. The suit was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement wherein it is stated that the disputed land is entered as Swai Chack in the revenue record and the same has been transferred by the Tehsildar to respondent No.2, UIT Ajmer and possession of the same has been handed over to respondent No.2, UIT, Ajmer. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed two issues. 5. The parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence on the issues. 6. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants vide its judgment and decree dated 8th September, 2006. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants came to be dismissed by the lower appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 6th September, 2007. 7. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants that so far as the finding recorded by the trial court regarding the land of Khasra Nos. 7. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants that so far as the finding recorded by the trial court regarding the land of Khasra Nos. 2931 and 2934 is concerned, the appellants have no grudge but the land bearing Khasra No.2944 was recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs earlier which is proved by Ex.1 and the same was subsequently entered as Sawai Chack without following the due process of law. It is submitted that the land bearing Khasra No.2944 is still in possession of the plaintiffs-appellants. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that at present the land bearing Khasra No.2944 is entered in the revenue record as Sawai Chack and the possession of the same is with the UIT pursuant to the order dated 25th February, 2004 passed by the Collector, Ajmer. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is revealed from the record that the defendants have not produced on record the order dated 25th February, 2004 but presently the land is recorded as Siwai Chack in the revenue record. It is for the plaintiffs to clarify as to how the land was entered in the revenue record as Swai Chack and what has been done by them in this regard. There is nothing on the record to prove the fact that the plaintiffs are in possession of the said land. Admittedly, the land in question is a vacant land. No material evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs to prove their possession over the land in dispute. 12. Both the courts below having recorded the findings against the appellant as regards the ownership and possession in respect to the said land, this court is not inclined to interfere with the said concurrent findings of facts. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any question of law much less any substantial question of law. 13. In view of the discussions herein above, the appeal being devoid of any merits is, dismissed.