JUDGMENT : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. This second appeal has been filed against judgment & decree dated 25.7.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota, in Appeal No.7/2009 filed by the appellant, by which the judgment & decree dated 21.4.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kanwas Distt. Kota, has been affirmed. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant was filed by the respondent/plaintiff with the averments that plaintiff is having patta of the land as described in the plaint, which was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat Kanwas, and is in possession of the land. It is further averred that on the southern side of the land, agricultural field of Ilahi Baksh, father of the Defendant/appellant exist and with the intention to grab the land of plaintiff, the defendant/appellant misbehaves, uses force and harasses the appellant/plaintiff and obstructs in raising construction on the land. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit with the prayer to restrain the defendant by issuing permanent injunction against the defendant. 3. In his written statement filed by the defendant/appellant along with counter claim, the appellant denied the contents of the plaint and it has been averred that the land in dispute is an agricultural land and the plaintiff obtained the patta in respect of the same illegally in association with Gram Panchayat, and prayed for dismissal of the suit by cancelling the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The trial court framed 5 issues, including the issue of relief, on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and exhibited sale-deed issued by Gram Panchayat, Kanwas, whereas the defendant examined only one witness and exhibited one document in support of his contentions. After hearing the arguments and analysing the material & evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and restrained the appellant by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession of the land allotted to the plaintiff and also directed that it shall not interfere with doing construction work on the land by the plaintiff, and also dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant. 5. Appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court by the appellant, also stood dismissed being devoid of any merit, hence this second appeal. 6. 5. Appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court by the appellant, also stood dismissed being devoid of any merit, hence this second appeal. 6. Contention of the learned counsel for appellant/defendant, inter alia, is that the courts below have not evaluated the evidence on record in proper perspective, misconstrued the facts and circumstances of the case and both the courts below have committed illegality in holding that the defendant has failed to produce any evidence with regard to the plaintiff obtaining the patta illegally in association with Gram Panchayat, as such the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment & decrees as also the record of the case. The courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding after analysing the material and evidence available on record and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity being committed by the courts below in arriving at the concurrent finding. The courts below have found that even the appellant/defendant was unable to point out as to whom the balance land was allotted. The claim of the appellant and brought on record that patta (Exhibit-1) issued by Gram Panchayat Kanwas, was revoked/cancelled on 4.8.1998 but the appellant was not able to produce any cogent material or evidence as to the said patta having been revoked or cancelled. Both the courts have found that even as per the statements of the defendant, he admitted that on the disputed land there was no agricultural produce and he denied of getting the said land converted into abadi and since defendant/appellant was allotted khasra no.2142 which was separate on which possession of Kailash was there and merely because some stones were lying of the appellant, could not be held to be in any manner possession by the defendant/appellant, and even the appellant was unable to bring any evidence or witness in support of the said claim. Therefore, I am of the view that since the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below are well reasoned one with concurrent findings, no interference by this court is required. 8. Consequently, this second appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.