JUDGMENT 1. Appellant-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in civil first appeal No.37/2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D.) No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.31/2013 (188/08, 75/09) whereby and whereunder appellant-plaintiffs' civil suit for permanent injunction, possession and seeking demolition of construction of defendants has been dismissed on merits. 2. Heard counsel for appellants and perused the record. 3. It appears from the record that appellant-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit in relation to the bada described in para No.2 of the plaint and shown by mark ?, ?, ?, ? in the site map appended with the plaint. Plaintiffs brought a case that in that bada, defendants entered into possession over the part of 16' X 3.6' towards the eastern-southern side of the bada that part over which defendants have been alleged to be encroached over the plaintiffs' bada have been shown with yellow colour in the site map. Plaintiffs' case, in the plaint itself is that Nagar Palika, Chaksu has regularized the possession of defendants over an area of 38' X 32' but defendants have raised construction in excess to their regularized area by entering into 3.5' excess land towards the plaintiffs' bada. 4. Respondent-defendants submitted written statement and contended that they have raised construction within the parameters of their regularized land comprising 38' X 32' which has been regularized in their favour by the Nagar Palika, Chaksu. Defendants did not dispute the possession of plaintiffs over the bada however, has denied that defendants have not encroached over any part or portion of the bada of plaintiffs. 5. In context to respective pleadings of both parties, learned trial court framed issues. Both parties adduce their oral and documentary evidence in support of respective issues. 6. That the trial court on appreciation of evidence of pleadings and evidence observed that plaintiffs are in possession of bada but have not shown any ownership and specification, measurement of the bada as detailed out in the site map. The trial court observed that plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence to show that defendants have entered into possession by 3.5' towards the plaintiffs' bada, in excess to the land area of 38' X 32' regularized by the Nagar Palika, Chaksu in favour of defendants. The trial court observed that plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence to show that defendants have entered into possession by 3.5' towards the plaintiffs' bada, in excess to the land area of 38' X 32' regularized by the Nagar Palika, Chaksu in favour of defendants. It appears from the record that on request of appellants, the trial court appointed the Tehsildar to inspect the site and submit report. The Tehsildar, in pursuance to the proof of the trial court inspected the site and submitted site report dated 28.03.2013 on record. As per site report of the Tehsildar, defendants' construction was not found beyond the area of 38' X 32'. The oral evidence of parties were not found in consonance with the documents, hence the trial court, on appreciation of entire evidence on record, did not find the case of plaintiffs as proved that defendants have entered into possession over the plaintiffs' bada by covering a portion of 16' X 3.6' and consequently, the suit was dismissed. 7. Appellant-plaintiffs preferred first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2014. The first appellate court re-heard and re-considered the entire material on record. The first appellate court, while deciding issue No.1 has observed that as the issue of the ownership of plaintiffs over the bada is not involved in the present suit, hence the same was not adjudicated. The first appellate court while deciding issue No.2, observed that the bada of plaintiffs and their neighbour namley, Jeevan Ram are in the similar lines and as per the site report, it is not proved that defendants have entered into the bada of plaintiffs to the extent of 3.5' after demolishing their boundary wall. The first appellate court placed reliance on the report of Tehsildar as well as the photographs and site map and has concurred with the fact findings recorded by the trial court and dismissing the appeal vide judgment dated 31.03.2016. Learned counsel for appellants would argue that two courts below have committed perversity in placing reliance upon the report of Tehsildar and not appreciating that the report itself shows that defendants have raised construction in excess to their regularized portion of 38' X 32' rather have entered into the possession of plaintiffs' bada to the extent of 3.6' X 16'. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the impugned judgments and fact findings are perverse and appeal deserves to be admitted and allow. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the impugned judgments and fact findings are perverse and appeal deserves to be admitted and allow. 8. Heard learned counsel for appellants and on perusal of record, this Court finds that plaintiffs have come out with a case that an area of 38' X 32' was regularized in favour of defendants but defendants have raised construction in excess to that regularized portion and entered into the adjoining bada of the plaintiffs to the extent of 16' X 3.6' as shown in the site map (Exhibit-4) by yellow colour. Plaintiffs have not produced any cogent evidence to prove the site map (Exhibit-4) in order to show the measurement and specifications of the bada of plaintiffs and the area alleged to be encroached upon by defendants. One report (Exhibit-1) of the Nagar Palika, Chirawa was found not proved in absence of supportive evidence. Plaintiffs themselves moved application for appointment of Commissioner for site inspection and on request of plaintiffs, the trial court appointed Tehsildar to inspect and submit the site report. The report of Tehsildar was produced pursuant to the order of the trial court and on request of plaintiffs themselves. The courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error in considering the site report even though the Tehsildar was not produced any evidence. The argument of counsel for appellants that the report of Tehsildar is not exhibited and could not have been taken into consideration, is not sustainable in the given facts and circumstances. Further the plaintiffs have to prove their case by their own evidence. Both courts below have observed that plaintiffs have not proved cogent and convincing evidence to show the encroachment by defendants over the portion of plaintiffs' bada. Both courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact in that regard and the same are based on the material available on record. 9. The findings recorded by two Courts below are findings of fact and do not give rise to formulation of any substantial question of law. In absence of involvement of any substantial question of law, the second appeal cannot be entertained for exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellant-plaintiffs are essentially questions of fact, which requires re-appreciation of evidence. In absence of involvement of any substantial question of law, the second appeal cannot be entertained for exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellant-plaintiffs are essentially questions of fact, which requires re-appreciation of evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 of CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in findings. None of the question of law, falls within purview of substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Otherwise also, it is a case of concurrent findings of facts, which even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC as has been held in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai v. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [ (2001) 9 SCC 521 ], Thulasidhara & Anr. v. Narayanappa & Ors., [ (2019) 6 SCC 409 ], Bholaram v. Ameerchand, [ (1981) 2 SCC 414 ], Ishwar Das Jain v. Sohan Lal, [ (2000) 1 SCC 434 ], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sabal Singh & Ors., [ (2019) 10 SCC 595 ] and C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. v. C.Jayarama Reddy and Ors. [ (2020) 4 SCC 659 ]. Since no substantial questions of law are involved in present appeal thus, same is not liable to be entertained. 10. Accordingly, the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 11. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 12. Record of the two Courts below be sent back forthwith.