JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. By the instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC, appellant-defendant has challenged judgment dated 10th of July, 2006 passed by Addl. District Judge No.3, Udaipur (for short, 'learned first appellate Court'), whereby learned first appellate Court, while dismissing appeal of the appellant, has confirmed judgment dated 10th of April, 2003 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City (North), Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against appellant for perpetual and mandatory injunction, inter alia, on the ground that Gram Panchayat, Sisarma allotted Plot No.84 to one Ambalal S/o Fatehlal Khatik, resident of Udaipur on 9th of November, 1975, which was subsequently sold by Ambalal to Kishan Lal S/o Khatik by a registered instrument. Lastly, the said land was purchased by respondent from Kishan Lal through a registered sale-deed dated 31st of July 1996 and since then he is in possession of the land in question. For showing cause, it is, inter alia, averred by the respondent-plaintiff that the appellant issued a notice under Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short, 'Act') and further threatened to dispossess him from the land in question. It is also averred in the plaint that the appellant is also proceeding under Section 91-A of the Act against him. With these averments, requisite prayer for mandatory and temporary injunction is made in the plaint. 3. The suit was contested by appellant-UIT by filing its written statement. In the written statement, the appellant, inter-alia, pleaded that patta issued by Gram Panchayat, in favour of Ambalal, was illegal as it was not authorized to issue the same. It is further averred that since the predecessor-in-title of the respondent-plaintiff was having no valid title, even therefore registered instrument has not conferred any right, title or interest in his favour over the land in question. The appellant has also mentioned with clarity and precision in the written statement that earlier notice under Section 92-A of the Act was also issued against Ambalal. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled three issues for determination and thereafter rival parties tendered their evidence. On behalf of respondent-plaintiff, he himself appeared in the witness box and also examined another witness P.W.2 Kishan Lal and on behalf of appellant D.W.1 Satyanarayan Sharma testified. 4. Learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled three issues for determination and thereafter rival parties tendered their evidence. On behalf of respondent-plaintiff, he himself appeared in the witness box and also examined another witness P.W.2 Kishan Lal and on behalf of appellant D.W.1 Satyanarayan Sharma testified. Besides ocular evidence, respondent-plaintiff also tendered seven documents, which were exhibited. Some documents were also produced by the appellant. Learned trial Court thereafter proceeded to decide the issues after appreciating the evidence available on record, and, accordingly, decided Issue No.1 in favour respondent-plaintiff and against appellant-defendant. 5. While deciding Issue No.1, learned trial Court scrutinized entire evidence and materials available on record including the evidence of appellant. Learned trial Court also noticed a very vital fact that the appellant has miserably failed to prove its positive assertion about its right over the land in question, inasmuch as revenue record was not produced showing entry of the disputed land in its name. The learned trial Court has further observed that earlier UIT initiated proceedings under Section 203 of the Act against predecessor of the respondent-plaintiff, but, finally, Tehsildar, UIT dropped the proceedings by recording a finding that there is no infirmity in the patta issued in favour of Ambalal. The learned trial Court has further observed that earlier UIT initiated proceedings under Section 203 of the Act against predecessor of the respondent-plaintiff, but, finally, Tehsildar, UIT dropped the proceedings by recording a finding that there is no infirmity in the patta issued in favour of Ambalal. Requisite finding of the learned trial Court in this behalf is clear and unequivocal from para 9 & 10 of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, which is reproduced in ver nacular as under:- ^^9- vc gekjs le{k ;g fLFkfr izdj.k esa Li"V vk tkrh gS fd oknh us jftLVMZ foØ; i= }kjk oknxzLr IyksV [kjhnk blds [k.MUk esa dksbZ lk{; izfroknh }kjk izLrqr ugha dh x;h fd ;g jftLVMZ foØ;i= QthZ ;k >wBs gS ;k budks fdlh izdkj ls cspus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk bl lUnHkZ es Hkh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij izfroknh dh vkSj ls izLrqr ugh dh x;h vkSj uxj fodkl izU;kl vius vfHkopuksa esa bl Hkw[k.M dks uxj fodkl izU;kl dh crkdj vk jgh gS bl ckcr eS bl er dk gwa fd bl rF; dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknh vk tkrk gS ysfdu izfroknh us oknxzLr Hkw[k.M dk jktLo fjdkZM es ;w-vkbZ-Vh- ds uke ntZ gksus dk ysl ek= Hkh lk{; i=koyh ij izLrqr ughaA ;gka rd xokg us ekSf[kd :i ls bl ckcr dksbZ dFku ugha fd;s cfYd xokg blds ckcr dksbZ tkudkjh ugh j[krk gS bl lUnHkZ esa c;ku nsrk gS gkykfd oknh dk okn gS vkSj oknh dks vius okn dks lkfcr djuk gksrk gS ysfdu oknh ;fn dksbZ vk/kkj ysdj vkrk gS vkSj mu vk/kkjks dk >wBk crkrs gq, izfroknh vU; vk/kkj crkrk gS rks mudsk lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknh ij f'kV gks tkrk gS rks izfroknh dk ;gk ij izFke ;g nkf;Ro Fkk fd og vius vfHkopuksa ds leFkZu esa ;g lkfcr djrk fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ;w-vkbZ-Vh- ds uke ij ntZ gS vkSj bls fdlh O;fDr dks cspus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA izdj.k esa ;g fufoZokn rF; gS fd tks nLrkostkr oknh us ;w-vkbZ-Vh ds le{k fuekZ.k Lohd`fr ckcr izLrqr fd;s mudh iw.kZ i=koyh eaxok;s tkus ds ckcr oknh us izkFkZuki= U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k vkSj okn U;k;ky; vkns'k ds Hkh ;w-vkbZ-Vh us i=koyh izLrqr ugha dh vkSj U;k;ky; dks ;g crk;k fd okafNr nLrkost is'k djuk vlaHko gS ,sls esa ekaxs x;s nLrkostkr ds ckcr izfrdwy izHkko fy;k tk ldsxk vkSj bl izkFkZuki= esa oknh us oknxzLr IyksV lsa lacf/kr vly iVVk tks vEckyky [kVhd dks tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa iVVks dh fyLV ,oa vU; nLRkkostkr ekaxs x;s Fks ysfdu bl ckcr izfroknh us u rks dksbZ tokc izLrqr fd;k vkSj u gh dksbZ mfpr dkj.k is'k u djus dk crk;k tcfd oknh us budh izfrfyfi izkIr djus ds fy, vkosnu Hkh izfroknh ds ;gak fd;k vkSj bl lanHkZ esa U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh fnukad 27-2-2001 dks lEiw.kZ i=koyh dh udy iznku djus ;k ml i=koyh dks U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus ds fy, vkns'k tkjh dj rgjhj lfpo] uxj fodkl izU;kl dks tkjh dh x;h ysfdu mldk Hkh dksbZ leqfpr tokc i=koyh ij izLrqr ugh gS ,sls esa ;gh ekuk tk;sxk fd izfroknh ds le{k iVVk ,oa vU; nLrkostkr oknh us izLrqr fd;s vkSj ftudks tkucq>dj ;w-vkbZ-Vh izLrqr ugh djuk pkg jgh gS vkSj bu nLrkostkr dks izfrdwy izHkko izfroknh ds fo:) fy;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA 10- blds vykok izn'kZ&5 dk ge voyksdu djrs gS rks blls Li"V gksrk gS fd rglhynkj] uxj fodkl izU;kl }kjk 11-3-96 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k vkSj ftlesa vEckyky tks fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M dk iwoZ Lokeh Fkk vkSj bl IyksV ckcr ftldh lkbt 30 x 45 gS bldk iVVk lgh gksuk ik;k vkSj rglhynkj] ;w-vkbZ-Vh us fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj Hkwfe iapk;r dh ekuh vkSj og iVVk oS/k gksus ckcr~ fu.kZ; tkjh fd;k vkSj blh Øe es /kkjk 203 ds rgr tks dk;Zokgh dh mls fujLr fd;s tkus dk vius fu.kZ; esa mYys[k fd;k rks bl ckcr esa bl er dk gwa fd ,d rjQ rks lu~ 1986 esa rglhynkj] ;w-vkbZ]Vh bl Hkw[k.M dks oS/k iV~Vs ds vuq:i eku jgk gS vkSj vc bl Hkw[k.M dks vius gd esa gksus dh ckr uxj fodkl izU;kl djrk gS ;g ckr ,d vk'p;Ztud izrhr gksrh gS vkSj bl lUnHkZ esa ;fn ;w-vkbZ-Vh- dh ckr es ysl ek= Hkh lPpkbZ gksrh rks blds lac/ka esa nLrkosth lk{; i=koyh ij izLrqr ugh dhA izfroknh dh vkSj ls tks xokg lk{; esa ifjf{kr gqvk mls rks fdlh ckjs esa dksbZ tkudkjh gh ugh fd ;g Hkw[k.M fdlds LokfeRo dk gS rks eS bl er dk gwa fd izfroknh us vius vfHkopuksa ds leFkZu esa lk{; Hkh is'k ugh dh tks xokg is'k fd;k x;k mls rks tks iz'u iwNs tkrs gS dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gksuk dFku djrk gS rks ;gh ekuk tk;sxk fd izfroknh us vius vfHkopuksa ds leFkZu esa lk{; Hkh is'k ugha dh tks xokg is'k fd;k x;k mls rks tks iz'u iwNs tkrs gS dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gksuk dFku djrk gS rks ;gh ekuk tk;sxk fd izfroknh us ek= [kkukiwfrZ djus gsrq ;g xokg izLrqr fd;k x;k ;fn muds ikl dksbZ mfpr vk/kkj gksrs rks vo'; lqLi"V lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djrs rks tks izfroknh tcju csn[kyh dh dk;Zokgh djuk pkgrs gS og U;k; ds uSlfxZd fl)kUrksa ds fcYdqy foijhr gS vkSj izdj.k esa izfroknh dh vksj ls nLrkost izn'kZ ,1 iapukek iznf'kZr djok;k ftlesa Hkw[k.M dks 50x30 dk vafdr dj j[kk gS ysfdu ;g iapukek fdlus] fdlds le{k cuk;k bl rF; dks Li"V :i ls izekf.kr lk{kh }kjk ugh fd;k x;kA lk{kh ;g vo'; dgrk gS fd djhe c{k us ;g iapukek cuk;k ysfdu djhe c['k ds iapukek cukus ds D;k vk/kkj FksA D;k bl ij fdlh xokgu ds gLrk{kj djok;s x;s bl laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; ugha gS rks ek= iapukek vius dk;kZy; esa cSBdj cuk ysus ls gh dksbZ Hkw[k.M voS/k ugha gks tkrk gS vkSj tks iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k mls Hkh fdlh l{ke laLFkk }kjk vkt fnol rd fujLr ugha fd;k x;k gS rks ,sls esa izfroknh fdl vk/kkj ij ;g Hkw[k.M viuk crkrk gS blds vykok izn'kZ , 2 uksfVl fn;k x;k blesa Hkh 50x30 dh Hkwfe ij vfrØe.k djus dk mYys[k izfroknh }kjk fd;k x;k gS ysfdu D;k ;g tehu uxj fodkl izU;kl dh Fkh ftl ij vfrØe.k dj fy;k x;k ,slh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugh gS blds vykok izn'kZ ,3 o ,4 voS/k fuekZ.k djus ckcr uksfVl fn;s x;s gS bl ckcr eS bl er dk gwa fd dksbZ Hkh O;fDr fuekZ.k dk;Z vius Hkw[k.M ij djokrk gS rks fuekZ.k Lohd`fr izkIr djds gh fuekZ.k djok ldrk gS ysfdu bl izdj.k esa ;g fufoZokn rF; gS fd oknh }kjk fuekZ.k Lohd`fr ds fy, vkosnu izfroknh ds ;gka ij fd;k vkSj mldk dksbZ leqfpr dkj.k o tokc izfroknh }kjk ugha fn;k x;k u gh fuekZ.k Lohd`fr ds fy, vkosnu izfroknh ds ;gka ij fd;k vkSj mldk dksbZ leqfpr dkj.k o tokc izfroknh }kjk ugha fn;k x;k u gh fuekZ.k Lohd`fr tkjh dh x;h oknh }kjk Hkh izdj.k esa dksbZ fuekZ.k Lohd`fr ckcr~ nLrkost i=koyh ij izLrqr ugha fd;s rks ;g fook|d oknh ds i{k esa vkaf'kd :i ls r; fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh dks oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ls tcju csn[ky ugha djs ,oa oknh us tks fuekZ.k Lohd`fr gsrq izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj j[kk gS ml ij fu;ekuqlkj fuekZ.k Lohd`fr tkjh djs vr% mDr lhek rd ;g fook|d oknh ds i{k esa fo:) izfroknh r; fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 6. Likewise, learned trial Court decided Issues No.2 & 3, which was settled on the basis of pleadings of appellant against it as not pressed and that facilitated passing of the decree for mandatory and perpetual injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, appellant approached first appellate Court and the first appellate Court examined the matter de-novo, and, upon appreciation of evidence, fully concurred with the finding and conclusion of the learned trial Court. Finally, the learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, appellant approached first appellate Court and the first appellate Court examined the matter de-novo, and, upon appreciation of evidence, fully concurred with the finding and conclusion of the learned trial Court. Finally, the learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. While recording its concurrence with the finding of learned trial Court on Issue No.1, learned first appellate Court made following observations upon reappreciation of evidence:- ^^14- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij layXu nLrkost izn'kZ 5, dk voyksdu djus ij ;g izdV gksrk gS fd rglhynkj izU;kl }kjk fn-11-3-96 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; esa vackyky }kjk izLrqr iV~Vs o Cyw fizaV ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkwfe dks iapk;r ;kstuk dh Hkwfe ekuk gS ,oa IyksV dh lkbZt 30x45 QhV ekuk gS] mldk iVVk rglhynkj uxj fodkl izU;kl us vius fu.kZ; izn'kZ 5, esa lgh gksuk ik;k gS rFkk rglhynkj uxj fodkl izU;kl us vius fu.kZ; izn'kZ 5 esa fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj Hkwfe xkze iapk;r lhlkjek dh ekuus o iVVk oS/k gksus ds lEcU/k esa viuk fu"d"kZ fn;k gS rFkk bl vk/kkj ij /kkjk 203 ds rgr tks dk;Zokgh dh xbZ Fkh] ml dk;Zokgh dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk mYys[k vius fu.kZ; esa fd;k gSA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,d rjQ tc lu 1986 esa rglhynkj izU;kl us bl fookfnr Hkw[k.M ds iVVs dks oS/k iVVk ekuk gS] ogh nwljh vkSj gLrxr izdj.k esa iqu% izfroknh izU;kl us bl iVVs dks QthZ o xyr crkrs gq, oknh }kjk jftŒ foØ; i= ds tfj;s fd;s x, foØ; foys[k dks 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh crk;k gSA 15- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; es dsoy ek= izfroknh foHkkx ds Hkou fujh{kd djhe c{k }kjk cuk;s x;s iapukes ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh izU;kl us oknh ds rFkkdfFkr iV~Vs dks voS/k crk;k gS rFkk oknh ds LokfeRo ls badkj fd;k gS] fdUrq izfroknh foHkkx dh vksj ls fookfnr Hkw[k.M dk iapukek cukus okys Hkou fujh{kd djhc c{k dks Hkh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ls lk{; esa ijhf{kr ugha djok;k gS rFkk uk gh ,slk dksbZ nLrkost is'k fd;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g ekuk tk lds fd oknh dk fookfnr Hkw[k.M ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ LoRo o dCtk ugha gksdj izfroknh ds LokfeRo dk fookfnr Hkw[k.M gks ;k jktLo fjdkMZ esa fookfnr Hkw[k.M izfroknh ds uke ntZ gksA 16- ;gka ;g Hkh mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk mfpr gS fd rglhynkj izU;kl us lu 1986 esa oknh ds ftl iV~Vs dks lgh ekuk gS] og iV~Vk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk vkt rd fujLr fd;k tk pqdk gks] ,slk Hkh dksbZ rF; vf/koDrk vihykaV@izfroknh nkSjkus cgl ugha crk ik;s gSA oknh ds i{k esa foØsrk fd'kuyky }kjk fd;s x;s foØ; foys[k dks Hkh izfroknh izU;kl }kjk fujLr fd;s tkus dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gks] ,slk rdZ Hkh nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykaV dk ugh jgk gSA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tc oS/k iV~Vs ds vk/kkj ij ftls fd izU;kl ds rglhynkj us oS/k ekuk] vackyky us vius LokfeRo dk vUrj.k fd'kuyky dks fd;k x;k rFkk ckn esa fd'kuyky us vius LokfeRo ds lEca/k esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ nLrkost gh izLrqr ugha dj ik;k gksA bl izdkj mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkosth lk{; o ekSf[kd lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fook|d uEcj&1 dk fu.kZ; oknh ds gd esa o izfroknh ds fo:) djus es esjs er es fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ rF;kRed o dkuwuh =qfV ugha dh gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr es fook|d uEcj&1 ds lEca/k esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fd;s x;s fu.kZ; esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;s tkus ds dksbZ U;k;laxr vk/kkj izrhr ugha gksrs gSA vr% fook|d ua-1 ij fd;s x, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA^^ 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent, perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts below and also scanned record of the case. 9. Endeavour made by the appellant before this Court is to challenge concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. Normally, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, this Court is not obliged to enter into factual arena and it can only entertain second appeal if it involves substantial question of law. To put it more clear, for entertaining second appeal, existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua-non. 10. While it is true that simply because there is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below an aggrieved party is not precluded from invoking second appellate jurisdiction but then its task is very difficult inasmuch as the party complaining against such concurrent finding is required to satisfy that the finding is perverse or it is based on complete misreading of evidence or in ignorance of evidence which is available on record. I am afraid, upon perusal of the record, no such situation is emerging. Assuming it, that the evidence, which was available on record was inadequate or insufficient and yet both the courts below recorded an affirmative finding on Issue No.1 in favour of respondent-plaintiff, then too, in my opinion, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, this Court is not obliged to examine sufficiency of evidence on the basis of which concurring decisions are rendered by both the courts below. The term "substantial question of law" is very significant because the prefix "substantial" has qualified the same so as to make it an exigent, truly of sound worth, essential and considerable and not a simple question of law. It is also to be understood as very special in contradiction with purely technical, of no substance or consequence or merely academic. 11. Law is trite that first appellate Court is final court of facts as well as law, and therefore, for entertaining second appeal, aggrieved party must make out a case that there is substantial question of law involved in the matter requiring adjudication. 12. 11. Law is trite that first appellate Court is final court of facts as well as law, and therefore, for entertaining second appeal, aggrieved party must make out a case that there is substantial question of law involved in the matter requiring adjudication. 12. Upon examining the matter in its entirety, I am unable to find any infirmity in the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, and therefore, sans any substantial question of law, the appeal being bereft of any merit is, hereby, rejected.