JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. By filing instant second appeal under section 100 CPC the appellant/plaintiff has prayed to quash and set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 17.11.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Sikrai, District Dausa ('the learned trial court' for short) in case No.06/1998, which has been affirmed vide Judgment & Decree dated 23.11.2011 by learned Addl. District Judge, Bandikui District Dausa ('the learned appellate court' for short) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 28/2008 by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that the appellant/plaintiff along-with respondent No. 5 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants contending therein that on Sikandra Crossing Geejgarh Road, property of the plaintiff/appellant consisting of shops and one room are in existence, towards west open undivided land belongs to both plaintiff and defendants, main gate of the room of the plaintiff is on northern side where also having windows, drainage etc. The said room and chowk is in ownership and possession of the plaintiff/appellant. The defendants have no concern but they want to close the door, windows and drainage of the plaintiffs of the said room and also to raise construction in chowk without any authority of law. Counsel argued that the plaintiff/appellant has filed suit for permanent injunction wherein issue of ownership is not decided. Counsel has argued that the plaintiff has clearly proved his possession over the disputed property and evidence of the plaintiff has been un-rebutted, possession of the plaintiff is also clear from Commissioner Report. 3. Counsel argued that both the learned courts below have not considered and discussed the Commissioner's report. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below. 4. Indisputably, no document with regard to title has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. PW2-Ghanshyam in his cross-examination admitted that the suit property was purchased by his brother Murari Lal and Murari Lal did not authorize the plaintiff/appellant to file the civil suit. The plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish nature of possession. 5. Both the learned courts below came to the conclusion that it is not established that on 23.8.2002 the defendants/respondents demolished the windows as alleged by the plaintiff/appellant. Both the courts below have held that no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish nature of possession. 5. Both the learned courts below came to the conclusion that it is not established that on 23.8.2002 the defendants/respondents demolished the windows as alleged by the plaintiff/appellant. Both the courts below have held that no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441 in para No.22 has held ad-infra:- "22. The findings of fact concurrently recorded by the Trial Court as also by the Lower Appellate Court could not have been legally upset by the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. unless it was shown that the findings were perverse, being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record, no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion." 7. I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned courts below. 8. Resultantly, the second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff is without any substance and accordingly stands dismissed.