JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by the appellant Municipal Council, Nathdwara for assailing the judgment-cum-decree dated 21.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara in Civil First Appeal No. 7/2016 (CIS No. 7/2016) whereby the first appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment-cum-decree dated 28.05.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nathdwara in Civil Original Suit No. 09/2015 (Ratan Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Nathdwara) was dismissed and the judgment-cum-decree passed by the learned trial Court whereby suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, was affirmed. 3. I have heard and perused the material available on record. The plaintiffs filed the suit in question for seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction stating therein that they were having ownership and possession over a plot situated as per the neighbourhood mentioned in the suit. The plot was conferred to Shri Kalu Singh, father of the plaintiff by the Temple Board, Nathdwara in form of Taliya on 03.07.1959 and ever since then, the plaintiffs' father and plaintiff were in use and occupation thereof. Boundary wall and a room had been constructed on the plot in question and that the defendant Municipal Council, Nathdwara was trying to forcibly dispossess them. A portion of the boundary wall of the plaintiffs was demolished on 27.12.2011 by the employees of the defendant Municipal Council, Nathdwara. The trial Court considered the entire material available on record and formulated the following issues for consideration:- ^^¼1½ vk;k okni= ds iSjk la[;k ,d esa fofgr iM+kSlksa ds e/; fLFkr Hkw[k.M oknh d firk ds }kjk ukFk}kjk eafnj e.My] ukFk}kjk ls ÁkIr dj mlds dCts esa gS] vr% oknh Áfroknh ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh fMØh ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd Áfroknh fooknxzLr lEifr esa tcjnLrh dCtk ugha djs] ckm.Mªh okWy ugha fxjkosa rFkk mldk fuykeh vFkok fdlh vU; ek/;e ls gLrkUrj.k ugha djsa\ ¼2½ vk;k fooknxzLr lEifr ds laca/k esa ukFk}kjk eafnj e.My ukFk}kjk dks iV~Vk nsus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS\ ¼3½ vk;k fooknxzLr lEifr Áfroknh ds LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; dh gksdj vkcknh Hkwfe gS\ ¼4½ vuqrks’kA** 4. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court found that the Temple Board, Nathdwara issued a patta for the plot in question in favour of the plaintiff-Ratan Singh's father Shri Kalu Singh on 03.07.1959. When the Patta was issued, the land was enter in the name of the Temple Board, Nathdwara as per the revenue record. 5. The plea taken by the defendant-appellant that the Temple Board had no right or authority to issue the patta in question was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. Finally, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs were in undisputed use and possession of the plot in question from the year 1959 onwards, and in case, the Municipal Council was raising an issue regarding the authority of the Temple Board to issue the patta, then it had to seek cancellation thereof. The plaintiffs got the patta after making payment to the Temple Board and thus, the issue was decided in their favour. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by the trial Court in the following terms:- ^^13- vr% okn oknh fo:) Áfroknh ckcr~ LFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk ,oa vkns'kkRed vkKk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj Áfroknh uxjikfydk ukFk}kjk tfj;s vk;qDr uxjikfydk ukFk}kjk dks bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ ,oa vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd os fcuk fof/kd ÁfØ;k viuk;s okni= dh dye la[;k 01 esa of.kZr iM+kSlksa dks chp fLFkr Hkwfe ls oknh dk dCtk ugha gVkosa] mls csn[ky ugha djsa u gh mDr Hkwfe dks fdlh vU; dks gLrkUrfjr djsaA oknxzLr Hkwfe ds iM+kSl bl Ádkj gS %& iwoZ esa & iM+r tehu ,oa orZeku esa d`f"k Hkwfe ckcwyky HkkfV;k ,oa vkoklh; edku ,oa Hkw[k.M t;Jh dkWyksuh if'pe esa & es?kyk vksM dk edku ,oa orZeku esa enuflag jkoy dk edku ,oa jkLrk mRrj esa & lok vksM dk ckM+k ,oa orZeku eas d`f"k Hkwfe ckcwyky HkkfV;k dh nf{k.k esa & tljkt vksM dk edku ,oa orZeku eas edku ,oa Hkw[k.M gfjukjk;.k Mkch dk [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk Lo;a ogu djsaxsA rn~uqlkj fMØh ipkZ ewfrZc fd;k tkosaA 6. As stated above, the first appeal preferred by the appellant-Municipal Council, Nathdwara against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 28.05.2016 stands rejected by the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2018 passed by the Appellate Court. 7. As stated above, the first appeal preferred by the appellant-Municipal Council, Nathdwara against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 28.05.2016 stands rejected by the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2018 passed by the Appellate Court. 7. After having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced at Bar and upon going through the impugned judgments, I am of the firm opinion that two competent civil courts have recorded concurrent findings of facts recorded against the appellant and in favour of the respondent, after thorough appreciation and evaluation of evidence available on record. The concurrent findings of fact in the impugned judgments do not suffer from any error, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference in this appeal. 8. The instant civil second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. Hence, the same is dismissed. Needless to say that the appellant-defendant Municipal Council, Nathdwara would be at liberty to question the validity of the patta as per law, if so desired. 9. Decree be prepared accordingly. Record be returned to the trial Court forthwith.