JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - A challenge in this second appeal under section 100 CPC has been laid by the appellants-defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') to the affirming judgment passed on 17-5-2017 passed by the District Judge Bundi dismissing the defendants' first appeal against the judgment dated 17-12-2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Indragarh, District Bundi in civil suit No.8/2000, whereunder the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was decreed. 2. Ramesh Chand filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that his father Ramswaroop (now deceased and represented by his LR's) had purchased three shops around 22 years back, in a private sale and thereafter got them regularised on depositing the requisite fee with the Municipal Board Indragarh. The plaintiff's case was that the Municipality now without any justification sought to demolish the shops, and interference with the plaintiff's legal rights and hence the suit for permanent injunction. 3. On service of notice on the plaint, the defendants filed written statement and submitted that the plaintiff had made encroachment and raised construction over 30 x 10 ft. government land. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed six issues amongst them as to whether the plaintiff was in legal possession of shops in dispute and whether he was an encroacher over government land measuring 30x10 ft. 5. Considering the evidences laid by the plaintiff and the fact that defendants failed to produce any evidence oral or documentary, the trial court found that the plaintiff had deposited amounts of Rs. 693/- on 24-3-1982 and Rs. 556/- on 18-5-1996 towards conversion charges and thus was the apparent owner of the shops in settled possession. And the defendants had produced any evidence whatsoever with regard to plaintiff's alleged encroachment. The plaintiff's evidence remaining unrebutted, his suit was decreed on 17-12-2011 restraining the defendants from demolishing the suit property in question. The defendants' regular first appeal under section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree of the trial court has failed under the appeal court's judgment dated 17-5-2017. Hence this second appeal. 6. Heard counsel for the defendants, the appellants herein. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court shows that the plaintiff's unrebutted evidence established that that he was the owner of the suit shops and in possession. Hence this second appeal. 6. Heard counsel for the defendants, the appellants herein. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court shows that the plaintiff's unrebutted evidence established that that he was the owner of the suit shops and in possession. In the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to the law's protection which the courts below by the impugned judgments have granted by a decree of permanent injunction. 8. The concurrent findings of the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence laid on the issues struck in the plaintiffs' suit. They suffer neither perversity nor are vitiated by any illegality. No substantial question of law arises from the findings of the courts below and pleadings of the appellant defendant unsupported as they were by any evidence, to warrant exercise of the jurisdiction of this court under section 100 CPC. The second appeal is dismissed.