JUDGMENT : Vivek Kumar Birla, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2019 and decree dated 25.10.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Bulandshahar in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2018 (Subhash and another vs. Mangeram and others) arising out of judgment and order dated 9.1.2018 and decree dated 17.1.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) / F.T.C., Bulandshahar in Original Suit No. 1062 of 2009. 3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendants-respondents for permanent injunction regarding the property shown in the map annexed with the plaint. The case of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant. Both the parties filed documentary as well as oral evidence. 4. In all 11 issues were framed by the trial court. Issue no. 1 was as to whether the plaintiff and the defendants respondent 'second set' are the owner in possession of the property in question? Issue no. 8 was as to whether the defendant no. 5 has wrongly been impleaded as defendant and the suit suffers from non-joinder of unnecessary parties? 5. On issue no. 1, after going through the documentary as well as oral evidence on record, it was found by the trial court that as per Paper No. 11C 1 Khatauni and Paper No. 12C 1 Khasra Arazi No. 212 is recorded as abadi land of the Gaon Sabha and no evidence has been given by the plaintiff as to how he is the owner and in possession of the property. On issue no. 8 it was found that the Arazi No. 212, on which the disputed property is situated, is abadi land of Gaon Sabha but the Gaon Sabha has not been impleaded as party and on the contrary, by playing mischief the then Gram Pradhan Smt. Sarla w/o Satendra has been impleaded as respondent no. 5 and as such she has been unnecessarily impleaded, whereas the necessary party i.e. Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. had not been impleaded in the suit. 6. The appellate court after framing three points of determination appreciated the evidence on record in detail and dismissed the appeal by affirming the trial court's judgment. 5 and as such she has been unnecessarily impleaded, whereas the necessary party i.e. Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. had not been impleaded in the suit. 6. The appellate court after framing three points of determination appreciated the evidence on record in detail and dismissed the appeal by affirming the trial court's judgment. First point of determination was as to whether the plaintiff has been able to prove his possession over the property in question shown in the map as La, Ba, Sa, Da, Ya and Cha; second point of determination was as to whether the suit property is identifiable; and third point of determination framed was as to whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled for any permanent injunction. 7. All the issues and the evidence of record was discussed in detail by the lower appellate court and the trial court's judgment was affirmed. It was found by the lower appellate court that this property is not identifiable and that the plaintiff-appellant is not in possession thereof, hence, they are not entitled for any relief. Lower appellate court has also taken into consideration that earlier, one Original Suit No. 137 of 1994 (Mahipal vs. Ramgopal) was filed by the father of the appellant (Mahipal), which was dismissed on 23.4.1996 and in cross-examination PW-1-Subhash Chandra, who was the plaintiff (son of Mahipal) has admitted his eviction and also admitted that apart from the disputed 'Aahata' he has no other 'Aahata' (property in question) and also admitted that the property in question was not different from the property in question involved in the original suit filed by his father. It was also noticed that in the earlier suit filed by his father (Mahipal) the property in question was stated to be in Arazi/Gata No. 180 and 182. In the earlier suit, the case of the plaintiff Mahipal was not believed by the trial court and it was held that the suit property was not situated in Arazi No. 180 and 182 and it was held that the suit property was situated in Arazi No. 183, lease whereof was granted to the defendants, and it was also held that the defendants are in possession over the same since the year 1990. It was also noticed that no specific measurement, dimension or area was given in the plaint map. It was also noticed that no specific measurement, dimension or area was given in the plaint map. It was also noticed that Amin Commissioner report was disputed by PW-3-Pramod, however, he in his cross-examination admitted that Amin report is clear and correct. It was found that the property was not identifiable as required under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC and ultimately dismissal of the suit by the trial court was upheld by the lower appellate court. 8. Challenging the same, submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that both the courts below have committed gross mistake of law and perverse findings have been recorded raising substantial question of law. He submits that the property was clearly identifiable and the suit was wrongly dismissed on the ground that the property was not identifiable as required under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC. Attention was drawn to the plaint map, Amin report and the map annexed therewith and also the statement of DW-1-Uday Veer and DW-2-Satendra Kumar to contend that the direction and location of the property was correctly described and therefore, the property in question was clearly identifiable. He further submits that DW-1 and DW-2 have also admitted the possession of the plaintiff and therefore, this fact was not required to be proved by the plaintiff. Attention was also drawn to substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant faintly argued that in view of Section 9 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950) the property in question is deemed to have been settled in his favour and therefore, they are entitled for injunction. 9. In support of his argument on Section 9 of the Act of 1950 he has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Mahesh Chandra vs. State of U.P. through Collector Muzaffarnagar and another 1963 RD 198. 10. I have considered the submissions and have perused the record extensively. 11. On perusal of record I find that both the courts below have considered the evidence on record extensively and have recorded categorical findings. They are concurrent in nature. I have also discussed the findings of the court below above and the same need no repetition. 10. I have considered the submissions and have perused the record extensively. 11. On perusal of record I find that both the courts below have considered the evidence on record extensively and have recorded categorical findings. They are concurrent in nature. I have also discussed the findings of the court below above and the same need no repetition. I find that as per the record the property in question is situated on Arazi No. 212, which is a Gaon Sabha land and Gaon Sabha was admittedly not impleaded as party. On the contrary, apparently, for obvious reason Gram Pradhan in her personal capacity was impleaded as one of the defendant. Further, in the earlier suit filed by his father it was claimed that the property in question is situated on Gata No. 180 and 182, whereas the trial court while dismissing the suit recorded a finding that the property actually situated on Gata no. 183, lease whereof was granted in favour of the defendants, and they are in possession since the year 1990. Therefore, it is clear that both the courts below have rightly found that the property is not identifiable. All such questions are questions of fact and do not raise any substantial question of law. Although on Section 9 of the Act of 1950 learned counsel for the appellant faintly argued, however, it may be noticed that in his statement PW-1-Subhash Chandra himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he has filed the present suit for open piece of land lying on southern side of the 'Aahata'. He reiterated this fact by saying that he has filed the suit for a piece of land, therefore, the ratio of law laid down in Mahesh Chandra (supra), wherein the word 'building' was under interpretation, is not attracted and applicable. This is a case of concurrent findings and the lower appellate court has applied his own mind independently in deciding the points for determination and has correctly re-appreciated the evidence on record. 12. I find that no substantial questions of law arise in the present Second Appeal and the questions that have been framed in the memo of appeal are related to the questions of facts and I do not find that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse in nature so as to attract any substantial question of law. 12. I find that no substantial questions of law arise in the present Second Appeal and the questions that have been framed in the memo of appeal are related to the questions of facts and I do not find that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse in nature so as to attract any substantial question of law. I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the present Second Appeal and the case is covered by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the court below. 13. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.