JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Akhouri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2016 (decree sealed and signed on 18.03.2016) by the learned District Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No.66 of 2012 whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2012 and 13.06.2012, respectively passed by Sr.Civil Judge-III, Jamshedpur dismissing the Title Suit No.108 of 1998 has been affirmed by the appellate court. 3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and recovery of possession from the defendants. The suit property as described in Schedule-A of the plaint is a piece of land measuring 12’ ft. x 18’ ft. recorded as Holding No.86 Block-A situated at Sonari, P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. 4. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiff in the court below that this land was held and owned by one Gaya Manjhi which was allotted to him by Tisco Ltd on the basis of monthly tenancy, who constructed temporary hut over the suit land and later on the said Gaya Manjhi surrendered the suit land to Tisco Ltd which was subsequently allotted to the plaintiff for residential purpose vide Letter No.TAL/RA/092/4162/72 dated 03.07.1972. The rent of the plot was ascertained at Rs.0.12 per month payable to Tisco Ltd and immediately after allotment Tisco authority put the appellant/plaintiff in possession and since then he was paying the rent. The appellant/plaintiff took water connection and sewer connection in the year 1972 and made some construction also. It is also averred in the plaint that the appellant was an employee of Tisco in its Rural Development Department in a transferable post. He was transferred to Jamadova and taking advantage of the absence of the appellant/plaintiff, the defendant no.2 built a hut over the suit land. It was further said that when the appellant/plaintiff came to Jamshedpur in the year 1996, he found some building material over the suit plot and came to know that some people with an object to grab this piece of land have collected the building material on the plot. The appellant/plaintiff approached the police. A proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated. The appellant/plaintiff approached the police. A proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated. In the said proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C it was held that the defendants have no legal right and possession in the present holding and they were restrained to make any fresh construction over the suit plot. It is also said that if at the time of hearing of the suit it is found that the defendants have already made construction over the land they are liable to get the vacant possession of the suit land. It was further the case of the appellant/plaintiff that on the basis of the order passed in Cr.P.C proceeding it may be declared about the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and also for decree for recovery of possession of the suit land after evicting the defendants by demolishing the structure standing over the suit land. 5. The defendant no.1 Mangli Majhian had contended before the court below that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and barred by law of limitation and the suit suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties and it is also said that the suit is bad for misrepresentation of parties and suppression of facts. It was further case of the defendants that this piece of land has never been allotted by Tisco Ltd on monthly tenancy and if there is any allotment letter that would be only in pen and paper and it never became effective and the plaintiff never came in physical possession of the land in question. It was further contended that the land in question has never been surrendered by the father of the defendants to Tisco Ltd at any time and if Tisco Ltd has got any paper regarding surrender then the onus is upon them to prove this fact. It was the further case of the defendants that previously this land was in the name of Bucha Majhi who was the grand father of the defendant no.1. Mangli Majhian and Haria Majhi who is the father of defendant was the son of Bucha Majhi and after death of Bucha Majhi, Haria Majhi came in possession of the land in question. On the above facts, the trial court framed the following issues to decide the suit : “I. Whether the suit as framed and filed is maintainable? II. Mangli Majhian and Haria Majhi who is the father of defendant was the son of Bucha Majhi and after death of Bucha Majhi, Haria Majhi came in possession of the land in question. On the above facts, the trial court framed the following issues to decide the suit : “I. Whether the suit as framed and filed is maintainable? II. Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? IV. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and hit by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquisition? V. Whether the court fee paid by plaintiff is sufficient? VI. Whether the plaintiff has perfect right, title and interest on the suit property specified in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint? VII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of khas possession of suit land often evicting the defendants therefrom and by demolishing all the structures standing thereon? VIII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to other relief or reliefs as claimed? IX. To what other relief or relieves the plaintiff is entitled?” 6. The appellant/plaintiff adduced two witnesses to prove his case before the court below and the defendant no.2 has examined four witnesses before the court. The documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff were marked as Ext.1 to Ext.6 and the documents file by the defendant no.1 was marked as Ext.A to Ext.E. 7. The trial court after considering all the evidences and the documents came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff in the year 1996 came back to Jamshedpur and the building material over the suit land were collected by the defendants with an intention to grab this land and the trial court came to the finding that those documents have been obtained only to create evidence to show his possession over the suit land. In the circumstance, no right, title and interest over the suit land has been acquired by the appellant/plaintiff and that issue was decided against the appellant/plaintiff. Considering all the facts and evidences and after deciding the issues, the court below came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prove his right and title over the suit land and accordingly, it was dismissed by the judgment dated 05.06.2012. Aggrieved with this, the appellant/plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.66 of 2012. Considering all the facts and evidences and after deciding the issues, the court below came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prove his right and title over the suit land and accordingly, it was dismissed by the judgment dated 05.06.2012. Aggrieved with this, the appellant/plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.66 of 2012. The appellate court also entered into the detailed discussion on considering the documents and the evidences came to the finding that there is no illegality in the judgment delivered by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 29.02.2016. 8. Mr. Praveen Akhouri, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argues that Ext.1 is a letter dated 16.12.1994 by which this appellant was allowed to occupy the Holding No.86 for residential purpose on monthly tenancy and the rent of Rs.0.12 per month has been fixed but he submits that the Exhibit has not been interpreted in its right perspective and that is why this is a substantial question of law and this Second Appeal is fit to be admitted. 9. This Court is sitting under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and is not inclined to enter into the evidences and documents which have already been discussed by the two courts which are the fact finding courts. The courts bellow have come to a concurrent finding. In this regard a reference may be made to Para-12 of the case rendered in “State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motors Ltd. & Ors.” reported in (1990) 4 SCC 659 , which is quoted hereinbelow : “12. It may also be mentioned that on the basis of the evidence on record the trial court and the first appellate court had concurrently found that the premises in dispute belongs to the State Government of Haryana and is public premises under the 1972 Act. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the said concurrent finding only on the basis the written statement filed by the Municipal Committee Hissar, in C.W.No.3394 of 1970 in the High Court wherein it claimed title over the premises in dispute. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the said concurrent finding only on the basis the written statement filed by the Municipal Committee Hissar, in C.W.No.3394 of 1970 in the High Court wherein it claimed title over the premises in dispute. The High Court failed to note that the said claim of the Municipal Committee was not allowed by the court in those proceedings and that in the present suit the Municipal Committee, in its written statement, had taken a definite stand that the premises in dispute is part and parcel of P.W.D. Road, National Highway No.10, i.e. Delhi-Multan Road. This shows that the Municipal Committee was not disputing the title of the State Government over the premises in dispute. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below that the premises in dispute belongs to the State Government of Haryana and is public premise under the 1972 Act.” 10. In view of the above facts and discussion, this Court finds that there is concurrent finding of two courts below which are the fact finding courts and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, S.A. No. 267 of 2016 stands dismissed. 11. Interlocutory Application, if any, are also dismissed.