JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. 1. Appellant-plaintiff, by the instant second appeal under section 100 CPC, has assailed judgment and decree dated 21st of May 2016 passed by Addl. District Judge, Merta (for short, 'learned first appellate Court') dismissing his appeal and affirming judgment and decree dated 16th of April 2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Merta (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant instituted a civil suit for perpetual injunction and compensation against respondent Gram Panchayat, inter-alia, on the ground that a plot ad-measuring 2500 sq.ft. (266.66 sq.yards) is in his possession and respondent Gram Panchayat has also issued Patta for the same. In Para 1 of the plaint, neighbourhood of the plot are mentioned with a specific averment that the same is situated within Abadi area of village Gotan. A fact, that on the plot in question since long 23 trolleys of stones and 10 quintal lime-stone is lying, is also incorporated in the plaint. The appellant also stated in the plaint that he has completed requisite formalities for issuance of Patta and same was issued as per Panchayati Raj Rules, 1981. Ventilating his grievances against Administrator of Gram Panchayat, it is pleaded in the plaint that notice is issued to him with oblique motive in colourable exercise to remove stones lying at the plot. The appellant further stated in the plaint that he submitted copy of Patta before the Panchayat but after receiving the same he was threatened to be dispossessed from the plot in question. With these averments, appellant has craved for grant of perpetual injunction against Gram Panchayat not to interfere with his possession and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,950 as cost of the construction material. The respondent Gram Panchayat contested the suit and filed its written statement. In the written statement, Gram Panchayat denied all the averments made in the plaint. 3. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned trial Court framed four issues for determination. For substantiating his case, appellant himself appeared in the witness box and examined five other witnesses and also produced 25 documents. Per contra, on behalf of respondent, their sole witness DW1 Rameshwarlal Joshi appeared in the witness box and produced 10 documents, which were exhibited. For substantiating his case, appellant himself appeared in the witness box and examined five other witnesses and also produced 25 documents. Per contra, on behalf of respondent, their sole witness DW1 Rameshwarlal Joshi appeared in the witness box and produced 10 documents, which were exhibited. Learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments, and by its judgment decided all the issues against appellant. 4. Upon appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court concluded that appellant has failed to prove Patta issued in his name for the land in question and therefore the action of respondent Gram Panchayat in removal of encroachment is neither illegal nor infirm. With this finding, the learned trial Court decided Issue No. 1 & 3 against him. While adverting to Issue No. 2, learned trial Court recorded its definite finding that appellant has failed to discharge his burden to prove this issue and consequently decided the same against him. Issue No. 4 was decided against respondent as it failed to discharge its onus. Finally, the learned trial Court, on the basis of findings on Issue No. 1 to 3 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, appellant approached learned first appellate Court and the learned first appellate Court examined the matter afresh. While examining finding of the learned trial Court on each issue, the learned first appellate Court fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, which eventually led to dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments, placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court in Munivel v. Munusamy Mudaliar & Ors. [(1997) (1) Civil Court Cases 490 (Madras)]. 7. Upon examining the matter, it has come to the fore that learned trial Court has recorded its definite finding that no valid Patta is issued in the name of appellant by the respondent Gram Panchayat. The learned trial Court has also recorded a finding of fact that status of the appellant on the land in question is that of an encroacher. Grant of perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff pre-supposes that there is direct invasion of his right or threatened invasion to his rights, or enjoyment of property. The learned trial Court has also recorded a finding of fact that status of the appellant on the land in question is that of an encroacher. Grant of perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff pre-supposes that there is direct invasion of his right or threatened invasion to his rights, or enjoyment of property. As the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title and interest over the land in question, the relief for grant of perpetual injunction was per se misplaced. It is trite that an incumbent, who is encroacher over a land, cannot be allowed to assert his rights over it so as to maintain a suit for perpetual injunction. The relief of perpetual injunction, being an equitable relief, is not available to an encroacher. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly non-suited the appellant. The endeavour made by the appellant before learned first appellate Court also proved abortive inasmuch as the learned first appellate Court has also fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court. The judgment, on which learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance, cannot render any assistance to him because it was a case wherein the Court has remanded matter back to the learned trial Court. 8. After considering the matter in its entirety, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, I am at loss to say that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The case in hand is a pure and simple case of concurrent finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. It is needless to observe here that second appeal is not akin to regular first appeal and pre-requisite for maintaining second appeal is availability of substantial questions of law. To put it more clear, existence of substantial question of law is a sine qua non for maintainability of second appeal. 9. On overall objective analysis of the matter, I am unable to find any question of law in this appeal, much less substantial question of law, warranting adjudication by this Court. Resultantly, the instant appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed.