JUDGMENT : Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. This Civil Second Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant to assail the concurrent findings given by the learned trial Court in Civil Original Suit No. 267/1995 vide judgment dated 28th August, 2000 as upheld by the first Appellate Court under the judgment dated 31st January, 2015 passed in Civil Appeal No. 38/2013. 2. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant Chandra Singh filed a suit for injunction simpliciter against the defendants including Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (for short ‘UIT’), while claiming that Plot No. 12 admeasuring 85 x 45 yards having an area of 885 square yards existing in Aaraji No. 15 min in village Teeteradi was allotted to Chhagan Lal by Gram Panchayat Teeteradi vide Patta dated 28th July, 1956. Chhagan Lal remained in possession over the aforesaid plot uptil 6th February, 1980. Vide agreement to sell dated 6th February, 1980, he agreed to sale the said plot to plaintiff and handed over the possession thereof on the same day. It was alleged that the UIT, Udaipur, without any title and possession over the land, is threatening to evict the plaintiff and has allotted the said piece of land in the form of three plots bearing No. 746, 747 and 748 to other defendants No. 1 to 3. 3. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2000 while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the patta, which is allegedly issued to the plaintiff is genuine; plaintiff does not derive any right, title or interest on the basis of simple agreement to sell, as no sale-deed has been executed in his favour as yet; the said piece of land was found to be allotted to UIT, Udaipur by the State Government; settled possession of the plaintiff was also not found proved and at the most, he was found to be a trespasser on the disputed piece of land. 4. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court, after arriving at the concurrent findings, as regards the title and possession of the plaintiff over the disputed piece of land. 5. 4. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court, after arriving at the concurrent findings, as regards the title and possession of the plaintiff over the disputed piece of land. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as also for the respondents on admission of the second appeal and perused both the judgments impugned as also the ocular as well as documentary evidence available on record. 6. Prior to proceeding to decide this issue, it appears appropriate to decide the application filed by appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Application Under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC: 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking two documents on record. One being, the order issued by the Office of Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur wherein, certain schemes are mentioned to have been handed over to the Municipal Council, Udaipur for their up-keep and maintenance. Second one is the letter dated 5th March, 2014 issued by the Office of Nagar Nigam, Udaipur to one Devendra Kumar Mathur to deposit fees in respect of one plot situated in Hiran Magri Sector-11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that these documents go to show that the respondent - UIT, Udaipur is not having any control over or interest in various Sectors of Hiran Magri wherein the disputed property situates. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the application. 9. In my considered view, these two documents do not relate to the matter in dispute existing between the appellant and defendants. Letter dated 5th March, 2014 has been issued to one Devendra Kumar Mathur, who is not a party in this appeal. Another order issued by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur handing over the maintenance part of some Sectors of Hiran Magri to Municipal Council, Udaipur indicates their internal arrangements so far as up-keep and maintenance is concerned. By way of this order, the title over the disputed property or various Sectors of Hiran Magri is not being diverted or transferred to the Municipal Council or to any other body. By way of this order, the title over the disputed property or various Sectors of Hiran Magri is not being diverted or transferred to the Municipal Council or to any other body. So, these documents are not at all required to be taken on record as additional evidence as they are not having any bearing upon the matter in issue pending before this Court. Hence, the application is rejected. 10. So far as this appeal is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both Courts below have erred in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant was not in possession over the disputed piece of land. He has argued that the findings as regards possession over disputed land on the date of filing suit are not correct. It has also been argued that UIT, Udaipur has not been able to prove that the land was validly vested in it by the State Government. Nor any possession of UIT, Udaipur over the disputed property has been established as per the evidence adduced by it. It has also been argued that no revision has been filed against the said Patta issued in favour of Chhagan Lal under the provisions of Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the Patta was not validly issued to Chhagan Lal. Learned counsel submits that the appellant-plaintiff has derived his right, title and possession over the disputed property through Chhagan Lal by an agreement to sell dated 6th February, 1980. Chhagan Lal or his representative have not denied the existence of said agreement and thus, it would not make any difference whether sale-deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiff or not. It has also been argued that the learned Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and hence their findings suffer from misreading of evidence. In view of the above contentions, as many as 7 substantial questions of law have been proposed by the appellant. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that in view of the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned trial Court as also first Appellate Court that settled possession of plaintiff over disputed land is not proved, no scope of any interference is left in this second appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that in view of the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned trial Court as also first Appellate Court that settled possession of plaintiff over disputed land is not proved, no scope of any interference is left in this second appeal. He has argued that in the absence of any sale-deed having been executed in favour of the appellant, he does not derive any title over the disputed land. It has also been argued that both the Courts below have very elaborately discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence while arriving at their conclusions and thus, their findings cannot be faulted with on the ground of misreading of evidence. It has also been argued that when the said Patta was not proved to have been issued to Chhagan Lal genuinely or was under cloud of suspicion then, the plaintiff should have sought the relief of declaration of title over the disputed land and in absence of which, suit for injunction simpliciter is not valid. In view of the above submissions, he has prayed that no substantial question of law is required to be framed and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. In light of the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels at bar, issue-wise findings arrived by the learned trial Court were gone through by this Court as also the conclusions arrived at by the learned first Appellate Court. The issue of title and possession over the disputed land relates to factual aspect of the matter for which, first Appellate Court is the final Court. In my considered opinion, learned first Appellate Court has rightly upheld the findings given by the learned trial Court in respect of all the issues while elaborately discussing and analysing the oral as well as documentary evidence. 13. During arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 2213 wherein, it has been laid down that where a point of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any factual format, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as substantial question of law in second appeal. reported in AIR 1999 SC 2213 wherein, it has been laid down that where a point of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any factual format, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the contents of the document cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. But where it is found that the first appellate Court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal. 14. While considering the evidence available on record in this context, it appears that the mere appreciation of facts in respect of evidence as also the documents do not pose any substantial question of law in the matter in hand. It is also clear that since the first Appellate Court is not found to have assumed any jurisdiction which did not vest in it, hence, no substantial question of law is required to be framed in light of the judgment referred above. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Mohan Lal v. Nihal Singh reported in JT 2001 (9) SC 58. Factual matrix of this judgment is also akin to the matter in hand. In case of the judgment relied upon, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction claiming to be lessee of the land in dispute and at the same time, defendant also claimed to have purchased the said land. Both the Courts below arrived at the concurrent findings regarding possession over the land. High Court declined to interfere with those findings in second appeal. Then, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the findings of possession concurrently recorded by the lower Courts. 16. Similarly, in the judgment in the case of Christopher Barla v. Basudev Nair (D) by LRs reported in 2005 (3) SRJ 25 it was held that Court has limited right in second appeal. In that case also, both the parties were claiming title and oral evidence was led by them in this regard. 16. Similarly, in the judgment in the case of Christopher Barla v. Basudev Nair (D) by LRs reported in 2005 (3) SRJ 25 it was held that Court has limited right in second appeal. In that case also, both the parties were claiming title and oral evidence was led by them in this regard. Courts below arrived at the concurrent findings and no interference was made by the High Court. The view taken by the High Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. So far as the claim laid by the appellant-plaintiff on the basis of agreement to sell dated 6th February, 1980 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has referred the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 43 wherein, it has been opined that transfer by sale agreement or general power of attorney cannot convey any title or interest in immovable property and cannot be a valid substitute of sale-deed. It was further held that the property can be legally and lawfully transferred only through sale-deeds. In the matter in hand, agreement to sell was executed way back on 6th February, 1980 and the suit for injunction came to be filed on 7th August, 1995. During this long gap of more than 15 years, no sale-deed was got executed by the plaintiff in his favour. In absence of such saledeed, in my opinion, he cannot be allowed to lay his claim as having legal title over the disputed property as against UIT to whom, the said land has been vested by the State Government to formulate a residential scheme. 18. It is also worth mentioning here that in view of the evidence adduced by both the sides, plaintiff-appellant was not found in possession of the disputed property on the date of filing of the suit. PW-2 Chhagan Lal, from whom plaintiff alleges to have purchased the property has admitted in his cross-examination that the land in question belongs to UIT being the Government land. He has not disclosed the measurements of the disputed land in his statements. Learned first Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that looking to the statements of PW-2, his possession over the land is not proved. 19. He has not disclosed the measurements of the disputed land in his statements. Learned first Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that looking to the statements of PW-2, his possession over the land is not proved. 19. In view of these factual aspects, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Birender Singh & Anr. (RSA No. 293/2015) decided by the Delhi High Court on 21st October, 2016 wherein, it has been held as under:- “15. Therefore, even assuming that the respondent no.1/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property (though respondent no.1/plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property as on the date of the filing of the suit), even then, the discretionary relief of injunction could not be granted to respondent no.1/plaintiff who was a trespasser on government land and which was an acquired land acquired by means of a specific reference to the plot no. E-64, and of which ownership and continuous possession has been wrongly claimed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in the subject suit.” In view of above observation also, no substance is found in the case advanced by the appellant-plaintiff over the disputed land in the matter in hand. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relief upon the judgment in the case of Bhurji & Anr. v. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar & Anr. reported in 1996(3) WLC (Raj.) 155. In this case also, suit was filed for injunction simpliciter to restrain defendant from interfering with the physical enjoyment of land in possession of plaintiff whereas, defendants – UIT and Municipal Council were pleading that the land belong to them and was the Government land on which plaintiff had been in unlawful possession. The said suit filed for injunction and without seeking declaration was rejected by both the Courts below. This Court upheld the judgments of lower Courts stating that the findings of fact are not open to challenge in the second appeal unless there is some substantial question of law. The facts of the matter in hand are also similar to the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and thus, supports his contentions. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Premji Ratansey Shah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The facts of the matter in hand are also similar to the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and thus, supports his contentions. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Premji Ratansey Shah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in JT 1994 (6) S.C. 585. 21. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is Tola Ram v. Mohan Lal reported in 2012(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1271. While relying upon the judgment in the case of Anthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LR’s & Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 594, this Court came to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arises as the plaintiff appellant has utterly failed to claim the relief of declaration in respect of his title which was seriously disputed by the defendants, who also claimed his title over the property. Further, it was also observed that the appellant has failed in establishing his possession also. Taking into consideration the concurrent findings of the Courts below, while rejecting the suit for injunction, the second appeal was also dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Facts of the case in hand are also quite similar with the above referred case. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents has also argued that though the suit was filed for injunction only but during trial, both the sides led their evidence in respect of title also over the disputed land and both the Courts below while giving their definite findings in respect of issues No. 1 to 4 have concluded that the appellant-plaintiff was not having any title, right or interest over the disputed property. So, on this ground also, no case is proved in favour of the appellant to obtain relief of injunction. 23. He has referred to the judgment in the case of Anthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 wherein, it has been observed that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title are framed on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the Court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 wherein, it has been observed that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title are framed on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the Court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. Learned counsel for respondents thus attempts to submit that the issue of title over the disputed land also stands finally decided as per the findings given by the Courts below. But, I am not inclined to accept this view, as it has further been observed in the referred judgment that such cases are exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. So, it is apparently clear that the issue of title can be decided, as a general rule, in the suit for declaration only. 24. My view also gets fortified by the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the appellant rendered in the case of Rama Gowda (Dead) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs & Anr. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769 . In this matter of similar factual matrix, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the view of High Court keeping the question of title open. It was further clarified that the contending parties, in such situation, will be at liberty to establish their titles in the duly constituted legal proceedings. It is worth mentioning here that though this aspect is not directly in issue in regard to this second appeal but as the learned counsel for the respondents has made endeavour to crystallize the findings regarding title over the disputed property, it appears necessary to make the observation in this regard. 25. In view of the discussions made above and in light of the principles enunciated in above referred judgments, this Court is of the firm opinion that no substantial question of law as proposed by appellant in this second appeal is required to be framed and accordingly, this second appeal does not deserve admission. Thus, the second appeal is dismissed at admission stage and is decided accordingly.