JUDGMENT Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J —This second appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh in Civil First Appeal No.97/2013 whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.2, Chittorgarh in Civil Suit No.29/2010 has been affirmed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 24.7.2008, the respondent-plaintiffs No.1 to 5 filed a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents No.6 to 10 and the present appellant stating therein that the respondent-plaintiffs are villagers of Village Pal, Tehsil and District Chittorgarh, who are using the water of pond constructed by Maharana of Mewar for drinking and irrigation purpose for villagers of village Pal and the villagers are continuously performing Puja and worship idols of temples existing at bank of pond, but the defendants are causing nuisance by way of changing structure and demolishing temples resulting which religious sentiments got hurt and are deprived from natural water resource, therefore, prayed to decree the suit after restraining the defendants from operating mining activities and from changing structure / demolishing the temples. 3. The respondent-defendant State submitted written statement stating therein that land in question in respect of which injunction has been sought actually belongs to khatedar tenants and in absence of those affected parties suit is not maintainable and no illegal activities has been carried out at the site, hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. The appellant-defendant, who is one of the khatedars of the agriculture land of khasra No.379/1 and 378, filed written statement stating therein that the appellant and his other family members are khatedar tenants of the land in question, therefore, no person has right to seek injunction against them as they are having title and possession over the property. It is also stated that the land in question is of his family members' private property. 4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial court framed following issues:- IMAGe 1 5. It is also stated that the land in question is of his family members' private property. 4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial court framed following issues:- IMAGe 1 5. Learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record decided the issues No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiffs and issues No.4, 5, 6 and 7 against the defendants and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 and restrained the defendants from operating mining activities and so also not to demolish wall of pond and temple. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 of the trial court, the appellant filed a regular first appeal before the learned first appellate court and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.2017 while affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned trial court. 7. Being aggrieved with the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the appellant has preferred the instant second appeal before this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant for admission of this appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside because the same have been passed without considering the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned both the courts below have committed grave error while decreeing the suit and rejecting the appeal and failed to appreciate that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove facts involved in issue No.1 that pond was constructed by Maharana of Mewar and water pond is used for drinking and irrigation purpose by the villagers but the courts below without any evidence on the issue, decided the same in their favour and passed injunction decree against the appellant. 10. 10. It is further contended that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the appellant established, by pleadings and evidence, that property in dispute actually belongs to their forefathers by virtue of order of Jagir Commissioner and even the State Government in its reply stated that khatedari rights are existing over the property and besides this the plaintiffs themselves admitted that the appellant is khatedar of property in dispute still the courts below granted injunction decree in favour of the plaintiffs which is per se illegal and perverse finding. The courts below have also failed to appreciate that any dispute with regard to agriculture land can only be raised before the Revenue courts by way of filing revenue suit under the provisions of Schedule III and Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 therefore the civil suit is not maintainable before the civil court. It is contended that the plaintiffs failed to prove existence of any public temple over the disputed property but still the trial court gave finding only on the basis of photos showing temple on bank of pond at the corner. 11. In view of above arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to admit the instant appeal and issue notice to the opposite parties. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. Upon perusal of judgment passed by the learned trial court it reveals that the learned trial court has given the finding as below:- IMAGe 2 14. Upon perusal of judgment passed by learned first appellate court, it reveals that the learned trial court has given the finding as below:- IMAGe 3 15. Upon perusal of record it reveals that the plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant-respondents in trial court under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 91 C.P.C. for permanent and mandatory injunction and in the plaint the plaintiffs have requested to grant following reliefs:- IMAGe 4 16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit and granted relief to the plaintiffs which has been confirmed by the learned first appellate court, which reads as under:- IMAGe 5 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit and granted relief to the plaintiffs which has been confirmed by the learned first appellate court, which reads as under:- IMAGe 5 17. Upon perusal of the record, it also reveals that the respondent-plaintiffs have succeeded to prove in the trial court on the basis of their evidence that a pond was constructed by the then Maharaja of Mewar for the purpose of drinking water and also for irrigation of villagers of village Pal and it is also proved that the villagers are continuously performing worship of idols of temple existing at the bank of pond and defendants are causing nuisance by way of changing structure and demolishing temple and Mazar resulting which religious sentiments got hurt and it is also proved that due to above act of appellant-defendants villagers of village Pal will be deprived from natural water resources. 18. Upon perusal of record, it is also proved that the plaintiffs filed the suit for protection of their civil rights, suit has not been filed for any khatedari rights or any revenue dispute. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for protection of civil rights of villagers, therefore, civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit is not tenable. 19. Upon perusal of judgment of both the courts below, this Court finds that both the courts below have given concurrent finding about construction of pond and use of pond by the villagers of village Pal and also about existence of temple on the pond which is finding of facts and also concurrently found that due to act of appellant-defendant the civil rights of appellantdefendant are infringed, therefore, learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of respondent-plaintiffs. 20. 20. A three-Judges-Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholaram vs. Ameerchand , (1981) 2 SCC 414 , considered the effect of amendment made in Section 100 of the CPC in 1976, and held as under: "......The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgments of the courts below were perverse and were given in utter disregard of the important materials on the record particularly misconstruction of the rent note. Even if we accept the main reason given by the High Court the utmost that could be said was that the findings of fact by the courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable but that by itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere in the absence of a clear error of law." 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ramaswamy Kalingaryar Vs. Mathayan Padayachi , (1992) AIR(Supreme Court) 115, while considering the scope of Section 100 5 S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 452/2008 Trilok Chand Regar Vs. Nagar Palika, Niwai & Others CPC, held as under: "......Suggested shortcomings in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below would not alter the situation that those were findings of facts, unquestionable, under the provisions of S.100, C.P.C., which defines the contours of the power of the High Court in second appeal. ....." 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdev Kaur & Others Vs. Kaki & Others , (2007) 1 SCC 546 , considered the true import, scope and ambit of Section 100 CPC by referring the Section 100 CPC, before and after amendment of 1976, various declarations of law by Privy Council and Supreme Court, Legislative background in the 54th Report of the Law Commission of India submitted in 1973, Historical perspective, Rational behind permitting second appeal on substantial question of law, and held as under: "81. Despite repeated declarations of law by the judgments of this Court and the Privy Council for over a century, still the scope of Section 100 has not been correctly appreciated and applied by the High Courts in a large number of cases. In the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court interfered with the pure findings of fact even after the amendment of Section 100 CPC in 1976. In the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court interfered with the pure findings of fact even after the amendment of Section 100 CPC in 1976. The High Court would not have been justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact in this case even prior to the amendment of Section 100 CPC. The judgment of the High Court is 6 S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 452/2008 Trilok Chand Regar Vs. Nagar Palika, Niwai & Others clearly against the provisions of Section 100 and in no uncertain terms clearly violates the legislative intention. 82. In view of the clear legislative mandate crystallized by a series of judgments of the Privy Council and this Court ranging from 1890 to 2006, the Hihg Court in law could not have interfered with pure findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside and this appeal is allowed with costs." 23. In view of above discussions and in my considered view, learned courts below has neither misread any evidence available on record nor overlooked any material available on record and has given sound reasoning about their finding. The finding given by the courts below is finding of facts and also based on material available on record. This Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant. 24. In view of above discussions, this Court finds no force in the present second appeal. Hence, same is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 25. Accordingly, this second appeal filed by the appellant Harish Mehta is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also stands disposed of. 26. No order as to costs.