JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and ordered rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No.24 of 1986 by the Principal District Judge, Vadodara dated 30th September, 2016 confirming the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.878 of 1980 by the Civil Judge dated 31st December, 1985 posing the substantial questions of law as under :- "[1] Whether, on the facts and law, the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court are in accordance with law? [2] Whether the Ld. Appellate Court erred in not properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on the record of the case? [3] Whether the Ld. Appellate Court erred in not considering the aspects of appellants' possessing and occupation of the disputed land since years? [4] Whether the Ld. Appellate Court erred in not properly appreciating the evidence of the appellants' witnesses as per the Evidence Act? [5] Whether the Ld. Appellate Court erred in not deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as the present matter being rent matter? [6] Whether the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is barred by law of estoppels? [7] Whether the Ld. Appellate Court has failed to consider that the wall constructed by the appellants is for preventing damage to the property of the respondents by the water of river Vishwamitri? [8] Looking to the entire evidence on record, whether it is possible for the appellants to stay in 10 x 10 ft. land with their big family and cattle? [9] Whether both the Courts below have failed to consider the Panchnama exh. 70 drawn in the suit and exh. 28 drawn in appeal, which show that the appellants are holding more land than 10 x 10 ft. land as alleged? [10] Whether both the Courts below have failed to consider the rent note exhs. 66, 68 and 69, wherein it is written as 'open land', as well as counterfoils exhs. 48, 50 and 51 clearly show that there is alteration made afterwards?" 2. Heard learned advocate, Shri L.R. Mokaria for the appellants and learned advocate, Shri Manav Mehta, who appears on Caveat for respondent No. 1-Trust. 3. 66, 68 and 69, wherein it is written as 'open land', as well as counterfoils exhs. 48, 50 and 51 clearly show that there is alteration made afterwards?" 2. Heard learned advocate, Shri L.R. Mokaria for the appellants and learned advocate, Shri Manav Mehta, who appears on Caveat for respondent No. 1-Trust. 3. Learned advocate, Shri Mokaria referred to both the judgments of the Courts below and tried to emphasis that the possession of the open land was given as a tenant way back in 1957. He also referred to the fact that they are in possession and, therefore, the Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect. Learned advocate, Shri Mokaria has therefore tried to raise contention that out of the suit land, the appellant was given 10x10 ft. land on rent and, thereafter, he tried to submit that even the open land was given on rent and they are in possession and in occupation for many years and, therefore, both the Courts below have committed an error. He has submitted referring to Exh. 66 as well as counter foil, Exhs.48, 50 & 51 that they are got up subsequently and, therefore, both the Courts below have committed an error. He, therefore, submitted that the present Second Appeal may be admitted. 4. Learned advocate, Shri Manav Mehta for the respondent No. 1-Trust submitted that in fact, it is an encroachment and unauthorized encroachment on the open land, which has been believed and accepted by both the Courts below. He submitted that while exercising discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court may not disturb the concurrent finding of facts on appreciation of material and evidence. He pointedly referred to the substantial questions of law, which are sought to be posed and submitted that they are all referring to the appreciation of material and evidence. Learned advocate, Shri Mehta has also referred to the background of the facts and submitted that initially it was an open land and with the permission, small hut of 10x10 ft. was permitted and, thereafter, encroachments have been made over entire land without any permission and the claim about the tenancy rights have not been believed or accepted by both the Courts below. was permitted and, thereafter, encroachments have been made over entire land without any permission and the claim about the tenancy rights have not been believed or accepted by both the Courts below. Learned advocate, Shri Mehta has also referred to the background of the criminal complaint way back in 1976 and submitted that some compromise was made and inspite of that, the appellants herein had not vacated the land and the present appeal is filed only as and by way of abuse of the process of law. 5. Learned advocate, Shri Mehta submitted that confusion is sought to be created for the purpose of establishing some right though admittedly at the most, permission was granted to construct the hut of 10x10 ft. and that too, it was a permissible use given at the relevant time and there is no resolution of the Trust granting any such permission and the appellants have failed to establish any right, title, interest. He, therefore, submitted that the present appeal may not be entertained. 6. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeal deserves consideration. 7. As could be seen from the background of the facts and as stated in judgment as well as even submitted by learned advocate, originally the land is an open land and Pujari of the Trust or the temple may have permitted, which would not mean that there was any relationship of any landlord and tenant. Both the Courts below have on appreciation of material and evidence clearly observed that the respondent herein has failed to establish the tenancy. The open land which was given for keeping cattle and, thereafter, a small hut was permitted, meaning thereby, a small hut of 10x10 ft. was permitted as a temporary measure and permissive use, which is now sought to be claimed as a matter of fact without any right, title, interest. The submissions that some documents referred to are false, cannot be readily accepted as there is no such issue raised before both the Courts below and the findings of the Courts below clearly establish about the unauthorized encroachment coupled with the fact that there is a background of the criminal complaint way back in 1976. Not only that but after the compromise was arrived at, the appellants herein have not vacated, which reflect the attitude. Not only that but after the compromise was arrived at, the appellants herein have not vacated, which reflect the attitude. Therefore, the present Second Appeal also seems to have been filed as and by way of protracting the limitation. It is in this background, the submissions which have been made at length by learned advocate, Shri Mokaria cannot be believed and the claim sought to be made on the basis of some self-contradictory statement like on one hand, it is claimed that there are tenancy rights without anything on record, which have been considered by both the Courts below and on the other hand, it is claimed that the possession is there for a long period. Again it would mean that it was a permissible use for part of the land and temporary permission was given to construct a hut of 10x10 ft., which is now sought to be converted into absolute right without any permission or without any resolution of the Trust or any right, title, interest. It is in these circumstances, if such litigation is permitted, it would really allowing the premium on the abuse of the Court proceedings, which is not permissible. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad guidelines with regard to the approach while exercising discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code in Second Appeal. It has been well accepted that normally the concurrent findings of facts may not be disturbed unless there is substantial question of law, which can be said to have been involved, particularly, considering scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after the amendment of Civil Procedure Code in 1976. In fact, scope of exercise of discretion in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code has been drastically curtailed and narrowed down. A useful reference can be made to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. v. Kaki & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. v. Kaki & Ors., wherein, it has clearly observed that, "The legislative intention is very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become 'third trial on facts' or 'one more dice in the gamble". Therefore if such contentions are permitted, it would amount to endorsing the speculative litigation and, therefore, the present Second Appeal cannot be entertained. 9. v. Kaki & Ors., wherein, it has clearly observed that, "The legislative intention is very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become 'third trial on facts' or 'one more dice in the gamble". Therefore if such contentions are permitted, it would amount to endorsing the speculative litigation and, therefore, the present Second Appeal cannot be entertained. 9. Therefore, the present Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. 10. It is also clarified that the respondent No.1-Trust will be at liberty to recover the possession with the assistance of the Police having regard to the background of the facts in 1976. 11. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.