JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2014 passed by the first appellate court in Appeal No.4 of 2012 as well as against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrawasti in Regular Suit No. 60 of 2002; Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Vijay Bahadur Verma. 2. As per the given facts, a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was filed by the respondent against the present appellant. The respondent had claimed the right and title over the land in dispute on the basis of a sale deed dated 15.7.2002 which was said to have been executed by one Budhi Lal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of the land in dispute. It is submitted that, in fact, the appellant was in possession over the land in dispute as it was given to him by Nankau from whom Kanhaiya Lal had purchased a part of the land in dispute. It is further submitted that the learned trial court without any material evidence on record has wrongly held that the appellant/defendant had taken over the possession over the land in dispute during pendency of the suit and has raised certain construction thereon. 4. It is also submitted that the first appellate court without discussing the oral evidence has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. The first appellate court, as such, has committed gross illegality. It is further submitted that the appellant has the right of possession over the land in dispute and could not have been ousted by the impugned decree. 5. Mr.Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant has no right or title over the land in dispute. He could not claim possession over the same. The respondent has acquired the right and title over the land in dispute on the basis of a sale deed executed by Nanhkau in favour of Budhi Lal and who had subsequently transferred it in favour of Kanhaiya Lal, respondent/defendant. 6. He could not claim possession over the same. The respondent has acquired the right and title over the land in dispute on the basis of a sale deed executed by Nanhkau in favour of Budhi Lal and who had subsequently transferred it in favour of Kanhaiya Lal, respondent/defendant. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. The learned trial court while deciding the suit had framed certain issues, the translation of which on reproduction reads as under: "1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession over the land in dispute in the capacity of owner situated at Village Patna Pargana Varda Tehsil Bhinga District Shravasti bearing Gata No. 388 measuring 0.7020 air which has been exhibited as letters a, ba, sa, da? If yes, then its effect. 2. Whether the suit was undervalued and insufficient court fee paid? 3. Whether the suit is defective due to misjoinder of party? 4. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 Specific Relief Act? 5. Whether the disputed land is not markable? 6. Whether the plaintiff has no right for institution of the suit? 7. Whether the defendant is entitle to get special compensation under Section 35A CPC from the plaintiff? 8. Relief to which the plaintiff is entitle to get. “ 8. While deciding the issue no.1, the trial court has given its findings considering the evidence on record and discussing the same. The trial court has held that the appellant/defendant had admitted that he has not any sale deed executed in his favour with respect to the land in dispute. His name has not been shown in the revenue records and no case of mutation etc. is pending in any Court in this regard. The appellant/defendant in his statement before the trial court has admitted that the land which was sold by Budhi Lal to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant had made plinth over a part of the land. The trial court, as such, come to the conclusion that the boundaries of the land in dispute are the same which was sold by Budhi Lal to Kanhaiya Lal. The trial court came to the conclusion that the land in dispute is the same for which the plaintiff had got the sale deed executed in his favour by Budhi Lal. 9. The trial court came to the conclusion that the land in dispute is the same for which the plaintiff had got the sale deed executed in his favour by Budhi Lal. 9. It is the admitted fact that respondent/Kanhaiya Lal had got the said land executed by way of sale deed from Budhi Lal. The trial court has come to the conclusion that the appellant/defendant has no right or title over the land in dispute and as such has no right to claim possession. 10. The first appellate court while deciding the first appeal had framed certain points of determination and has decided the same by discussing in detail the evidence on record. The first appellate court has taken note of the fact that the appellant/defendant had himself admitted that no ownership was transferred in his favour by Nankau. In this regard the statement given by him has been considered, as such it is wrong to say that the first appellate court has not discussed the oral evidence adduced in the trial court. 11. The first appellate court after determining the points has come to the conclusion that the judgment and order passed by the trial court does not require any interference which is just and proper and has dismissed the first appeal. 12. There are concurrent findings of both the courts below. The proposed substantial questions of law framed in the appeal do not involve any legal issue and the appeal is not worth admission. 13. The second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. 14. The judgments and orders passed by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court are affirmed.