ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. There is delay in filing of this second appeal, as pointed out by the Registry, in support whereof application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant, wherein the delay has been explained and this court is satisfied with the explanation offered. Therefore, the delay is condoned. 2. Heard finally. 3. Challenge in this second appeal is made to judgment and decree dated 26.5.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nadbai, District Bharatpur, whereby the suit of plaintiff appellant was dismissed. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff appellant is having a residential house in village Hantra, in his ownership and possession from the time of his ancestors without there being any objection of any third party. The property in question is surrounded by other residential houses. On the basis of report of patwari concerned, the Tehsildar issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, which was replied by the plaintiff-appellant. The defendants, however, were bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff and they also threatened for dispossessing him on 27.8.2007. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit before the trial court praying for declaration of his right as also permanent injunction. 5. Defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating that the plaintiff is not having any title over the property in question which is a government land on which he has encroached upon and on the complaint filed by area patwari, under the provisions of section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, he has been dispossessed from the land, and the suit has been filed on the basis of frivolous facts levelling false allegations on government officials, and therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed with costs. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed three issues including the issue of relief. 7. Upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence as also material produced on behalf of both the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit, which has been affirmed by the learned first appellate court. Hence this second appeal. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed three issues including the issue of relief. 7. Upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence as also material produced on behalf of both the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit, which has been affirmed by the learned first appellate court. Hence this second appeal. 8. Learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant argued that both the courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant as they have not considered that the land in question is in the ownership of the plaintiff-appellants and they are in continuous possession thereon since the time of their ancestors. Residential house has been constructed on the land in question and the defendants-respondents do not have any right on the disputed property. It was contended that learned courts below have wrongly recorded that though the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the disputed plot but the said possession does not come within the definition of settled possession. Learned counsel further contends that the courts below have also not considered the evidence of the parties in correct perspective. The plaintiff-appellant has been in possession of the disputed plot since the time of his ancestors, which fact has been taken note of by learned trial court and decided the issue no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant but learned first appellate court has overlooked this fact and decided all the three issues in favour of the defendants. It is further argued that learned first appellate court has wrongly recorded that the plaintiff has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove ownership over the disputed plot, whereas the fact is that learned first appellate court has not appreciated the evidence produced by the plaintiff-appellant. The witnesses of the plaintiff-appellant clearly stated that the plaintiff-appellant has been in possession of the disputed plot since the time of his ancestors and contended and prayed that substantial questions of law arise which need consideration and the second appeal be allowed while setting aside the impugned judgment and decrees of the courts below. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment and decrees, I am of the opinion that learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit and the learned first appellate court has rightly affirmed the same. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment and decrees, I am of the opinion that learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit and the learned first appellate court has rightly affirmed the same. It is not in dispute that proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff-appellant under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act on the basis of the report of patwari of the area. The witnesses of the plaintiff, in their statements, though stated that the disputed plot has been in possession of plaintiff since the time of his ancestors and his family has been residing there since long, but the witness of the defendant, namely, DW-4 Prem Singh, has clearly stated that the disputed plot does not belong to the plaintiff and that plaintiff has encroached upon the government land recorded as gair mumkin pokhar in the revenue records, against whom proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act have been initiated on the basis of report of patwari of the area, and that he has been dispossessed from the land in question. The plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence in order to prove his possession over the land in question. 10. I find that the issue involved in the present case relates to question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, which cannot be interfered with by this court in second appeal. 11. Consequently, the second appeal, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.