JUDGMENT : Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21/02/2019 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Karera, Distt. Shivpuri (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 96-A/2017, whereby the judgment and decree dated 20/02/2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Karera, Distt. Shivpuri (M.P.) in Civil Suit No. 34A/2013 has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiffs have filed civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and restoration of possession as the defendants had taken possession during the pendency of suit by saying that they are the exclusive owner of land bearing survey No. 1270/2 admeasuring 0.05 hectare, 1271/2 admeasuring 0.10 hectare, 1272/2 admeasuring 0.25 hectare, 1276 admeasuring 0.21 hectare and 1332/2 admeasuring 0.04 hectare, total rakva - 5 and total area is 0.65 hectare, situated at Village Nizaampur, Tahsil Narwar, Distt. Shivpuri. Plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid land by its earlier owner Peer Khan, Sannu Khan and Jumma Khan by registered sale deed dated 01.02.1985 (Exhibit-P/9). Since then, they are in possession and their names have also been mutated in revenue record. Defendant No. 8 on the basis of aforesaid sale deed, purchased the land bearing survey No. 1270/2 admeasuring 162 sq. meters and 1271/1 admeasuring 193 sq. meters, total 1250 sq. meters on 28/10/1998 and claiming ownership over the aforesaid land. Defendant No. 8 has constructed house over the aforesaid land and Civil Suit filed by defendant No. 8 for declaration and permanent injunction bearing No. 41A/2009 was dismissed on 26/09/2011. On 19/08/2009, defendants started construction of house over the land belonging to the plaintiffs forcefully, hence the suit was filed. The trial Court dismissed the civil suit holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their valid title of possession over the land under dispute. First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has specifically submitted that construction made by him is over the land bearing survey No. 1271/1, which is not a disputed land as is clear from documents exhibit D-10 & D-16. Despite that the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohini Prasad and others Vs. Despite that the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohini Prasad and others Vs. Kasturchand and another [ (2000) 3 SCC 668 ]. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed to admit this second appeal. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 10/State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that there is no merit in this second appeal. Hence, prayed to reject the appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 6. Section 100 CPC reads as under:- "100. Second Appeal.--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex-parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) the appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question." 7. On perusal of record, it is evident that there is concurrent finding of trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. On perusal of record, it is evident that there is concurrent finding of trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. The trial Court has passed the judgment and decree as under:- ^^46& oknÁ'u Øekad 15 lgk;rk ,oa O;; %& oknhx.k dk nkok Áfroknhx.k ds fo#) Áekf.kr gksus ls fuEu vk'k; dh vkKfIr ikfjr dh tkrh gS%& 1- oknhx.k eqUuhckbZ iRuh gfjflag ,oa 'kkafrnsoh iRuh ljeu flag xqtZj 1270@2 ds jdck 0-050 gSDV-] 1276@2 ds jdck 0-100 gSDV-] 1272@2 dk jdck 0-250 gSDV-] 1276@2 dk jdck 0-210 gSDV-] 1332@2 dk jdck 0-040 gSDV- dqy fdrk 5 dqy jdck 0-76 gSDV- fLFkr xzke futkeiqj rglhy ujoj ftyk f’koiqjh ds oknhx.k Lokeh gSaA 2- Áfroknh Øekad&8 Árki flag iq= dEeksn flag }kjk Ø; fd;s x;s losZA uacj&1270@2 dk foØ; i= fnukad&28-10-1988 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA 3- oknhx.k ds LokfeRo dh Hkwfe losZ uacj&1270@2 ,oa 1271@2 ij Áfroknhx.k }kjk fuEukuqlkj fd;k x;k fuekZ.k voS/k gksdj vfrØe.k gSA v- Áfroknh gkfde flag iq= rqylhjke] taMsy iq= gkfde flag] egkohj iq= gkfde flag }kjk losZ uacj 1270@2 ds jdok 141 oxZ ehVj HkwfeHkkx ij [k.Mksa dh nhoky cukdj fd;k x;k voS/k fuekZ.k vfrØe.k gSA c- Áfroknh vaxn iq= [kydwjke c?ksy }kjk losZ uacj 1270@2 ds jdok 162 oxZ ehVj Hkwfe ij [k.Mksa dh nhoky cukdj fd;k x;k voS/k fuekZ.k vfrØe.k gSA l- Áfroknh vaxn iq= [kydwjke c?ksy }kjk losZ uacj&1271@2 ds Hkwfe Hkkx 193 oxZ ehVj [k.Mksa dh bZaVks dh nhoky ckmaMªh ckWy ds vanj dejs ,oa >kaiM+h cukdj fd;k x;k voS/k fuekZ.k vfrØe.k gSA n- Áfroknh txnh'k iq= dk'khjke c?ksy }kjk losZ uacj 1271@2 ds HkwfeHkkx 195 oxZ ehVj ij bZVksa dh nhoky ckmaMªh ckWy ,oa nks >ksifM+;ka cukdj fd;k x;k voS/k fuekZ.k vfrØe.k gSA 4- oknhx.k mijksDr voS/k fuekZ.k gVkdj fjDr dCtk Áfroknhx.k ls ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA 5- Áfroknhx.k }kjk fd;k x;k voS/k fuekZ.k rhu ekg dh vof/k esa fjDr dj oknhx.k dks dCtk lkSaik tkosA 6- Áfroknhx.k dks oknhx.k ds LoRo dh Hkwfe;ksa ij gLr{ksi djus ls fu"ksf/kr fd;k tkrk gSA 7- Ádj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq;s mHk;i{k viuk&viuk okn O;; ogu djsaxsA 8- vf/koDrk 'kqYd fu;ekuqlkj Áekf.kr gksus ij fu;e 523 O;ogkj U;k;ky; fu;e ,oa vkns'k ds vuqlkj [kpsZ esa tksM+k tkosA** 8. The First Appellate Court passed the judgment and decree holding as under:- ^^34& Qyr% vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls xzke futkeiqj rglhy ujoj] ftyk f'kiqjh e/;Áns'k esa fLFkr d`f"k Hkwfe losZ uEcj& 1270@2 jdck 0-05 gsDVj] losZ uEcj& 1271@2 jdck 0-10 gsDVj] losZ uEcj& 1272@2 jdck 0-25 gsDVj] losZ uEcj& 1276 jdck 0-21 gsDVj] ,oa losZ uEcj& 1332@2 jdck 0-04 gsDVj dqy fdrk 5 dqy jdck 0-065 gsDVj ds laca/k esa ÁLrqr vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA** 9. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that as the construction is encroachment, therefore no relief can be granted in favour of the appellant. Furthermore, on perusal of concerned revenue record, it is apparent that the appellant has not been shown to be the owner of said land. 10. The Apex Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Anjuman-Eismail Madris-un-Niswan, ( AIR 1999 SC 3067 ) has observed that the High Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in a routine and casual manner by substituting its subjective satisfaction in place of lower Courts. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that there is no substantial question of law involved in relation to the findings given by both the Courts below. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.