JUDGMENT 1. Appellant-defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana Camp Roopwas in appeal No. (20/2016) (7/2007) 1/2017, affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Roopwas in civil suit No.78/1999 whereby civil suit for possession and permanent injunction filed by respondent- plaintiff has been decreed in his favour and against appellant- defendant on merits. 2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the impugned judgments and record as a whole. 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that the dispute between parties is in relation to a plot measuring 56X65 feet situated in Village Panduri, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur. Plaintiff instituted civil suit for possession on 23.10.1999 stating that the aforesaid plot was belonging to his predecessors namely Chhidi Lal and he was having his actual continuous and physical possession over this plot. It was stated that his predecessor Chhidi Lal obtained permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat on 17.10.1965 and thereafter, constructed a pakka room and thatched covered portion. His personal will is also situated in the plot. It is stated that plaintiff, due to his business purpose went out of village and behind his back, defendant has entered into and take over the possession of his property. When plaintiff returned back to his village on 20.9.1998, he asked defendant to return the possession of his property but he denied, therefore, the present suit has been instituted. 4. Defendant has submitted his written statement denying the case of plaintiff and stated that defendant is in possession of the suit property which was received to him from one Sh. Angad Singh to whom defendant went in adoption. Plaintiff's suit is beyond limitation and plaintiff has not valued the suit properly. Further it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The trial Court after settlement of issues, recorded evidence of both parties. As per evidence on record, the trial Court while deciding issues No.1 and 3 observed that plaintiff and his witnesses Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.3 have deposed evidence that plaintiff since time of his predecessor namely Chhidi Lal was in actual and physical possession over the suit property. 5. The trial Court after settlement of issues, recorded evidence of both parties. As per evidence on record, the trial Court while deciding issues No.1 and 3 observed that plaintiff and his witnesses Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.3 have deposed evidence that plaintiff since time of his predecessor namely Chhidi Lal was in actual and physical possession over the suit property. Plaintiff produced document Ex.5 to show that Gram Panchayat, Chekora granted the permission to raise construction to plaintiff's predecessor Chhidi Lal on 17.10.1965 (Ex.4). It was observed by the trial Court that at that point of time one neighbour namely Nekiram raised some objection, however, after settlement between both parties, (Ex.5) the Gram Panchayat accorded permission to plaintiff's predecessor for raising construction. It was also observed that on the permission Ex.4, Mr. Angad Singh has put his signature. Defendant is claiming his possession over the suit plot through Angad Singh. The trial Court observed that defendant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal to plaintiff's evidence to show his old and established possession. Statements of Dw.1, Dw.2, Dw.3, Dw.4 and Dw.5 were considered and on the basis of having previous possession over the suit plot of predecessors of plaintiff, the suit was decreed against defendant. It may be noticed here that defendant has not taken any plea of having adverse possession over the suit plot for more than 12 years. Thus, on comparative examination of respective evidence of both parties, the trial Court finally decreed plaintiff's suit vide judgment dated 19.1.2007. 6. Appellant-defendant challenged the judgment and decree for possession dated by filing first appeal, the first Appellate Court re- appreciated and re-considered the entire evidence on record. The first Appellate Court observed that document of permission dated 27.10.1965 (Ex.4) and settlement dated 17.10.1965 (Ex.5) are more than 30 years old, therefore, a presumption about genuineness of document under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was proved. As far as execution of these documents are concerned, same were proved by plaintiff and his witnesses. The Appellate Court on appreciation of plaintiff's evidence categorically recorded a finding that plaintiff since time of his forefathers was having possession of the suit property prior to 1965 and in counter to that evidence, defendant has not produced any evidence as to when he entered into possession. The Appellate Court on appreciation of plaintiff's evidence categorically recorded a finding that plaintiff since time of his forefathers was having possession of the suit property prior to 1965 and in counter to that evidence, defendant has not produced any evidence as to when he entered into possession. As per plaintiff's evidence, defendant entered into possession of suit in the year 1998 behind the back of plaintiff, when plaintiff was out of village. From the evidence of defendant, the Appellate Court observed that defendant is claiming to get possession of the suit property from one Angad Singh and admits that Angad Singh never purchased the suit property. As far as Angad Singh is concerned, he is one of signatories to the permission dated 17.10.1965 (Ex.4) accorded in favour of plaintiff. The Appellate Court also observed that defendant has not raised any plea of adverse possession and his possession over the suit plot on the date of suit i.e. 23.10.1995 is not more than 12 years. On all such appreciation of evidence, plaintiff's suit for possession was found within limitation and on the basis of previous possession of plaintiff's predecessor and in continuation of the possession over plaintiff's suit plot, the decree for possession passed by the trial Court was affirmed and first appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.1.2017. 7. Counsel for appellant, during course of his oral arguments submits that appellant at least by virtue of having adverse possession over the suit plot, could not be allowed to be dispossessed. 8. Considering the argument raised by counsel for appellant, this Court finds that in the written statement of appellant defendant, he has not taken any plea of having adverse possession. The objection of defendant in the written statement is only with regard to the limitation. Both Courts below while deciding the issue of limitation has recorded fact finding that defendant entered into possession of the suit property in the year 1998. Prior to that, plaintiff and his predecessor namely Chhidi Lal was found to be in established possession over the suit plot and in favour of Chhidi Lal, the Gram Panchayat accorded permission to raise construction over the suit plot vide order dated 17.10.1965 (Ex.4). The present suit has been instituted on 23.10.1999. Prior to that, plaintiff and his predecessor namely Chhidi Lal was found to be in established possession over the suit plot and in favour of Chhidi Lal, the Gram Panchayat accorded permission to raise construction over the suit plot vide order dated 17.10.1965 (Ex.4). The present suit has been instituted on 23.10.1999. Therefore, arguments raised by counsel for appellant to acquire the title to have adverse possession, is preposterous and without any finding as well as beyond scope of his written statements. 9. As far as fact finding, recording possession of parties over the suit property is concerned, both Courts below on appreciation /re-appreciation of both parties have concurrently held that plaintiff in his predecessor was in actual and physical possession over the suit plot at least from the year 1965 continuously. Both Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded such fact finding which is a possible and plausible view. Although, it is true that there is no title document in favour of either of parties in relation to suit property, however, the present suit for possession is based on previous and settled possession of plaintiff since time of predecessors. In the civil cases, the principle of preponderance on probability is applicable and once there is no evidence of defendant to show his possession prior to 1998 and any authentic source of possession, defendant cannot be treated in lawful and valid possession. 10. As per proposition of law, settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the High Court while exercising powers under Section 100 CPC at the stage of second appeal is not suppose to re-appreciate the entire evidence as a whole in order to take another view, taken by the Courts below, until and unless and findings of two courts below are perverse in any manner. 11. Counsel for appellant in the present circumstances of case could not pointed out any perversity, illegality in the findings of two Courts below and same do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi Shaikh & Ors. 11. Counsel for appellant in the present circumstances of case could not pointed out any perversity, illegality in the findings of two Courts below and same do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi Shaikh & Ors. [ (2011) 9 SCC 684 ] has observed that if a second appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, while hearing the second appeal finally, the court can re-frame the substantial question of law or can frame new substantial question of law or even can hold that the question of law as already framed do not fall within the purview of substantial question of law but the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under section 100 CPC, without formation/involvement of substantial question of law. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases has discussed the scope of High Court for interference in concurrent findings of the trial Court and first Appellate Court under Section 100 of CPC. 14. The Supreme Court recently in case of Thulasidhara Vs. Narayanappa [ (2019) 6 SCC 409 ] has held as under:- "The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only with the second appeal involving a substantial question of law. The existence of "a substantial question of law" is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The question framed by the High Court in this case cannot be said to be a substantial question of law at all. In the present case the trial Court as well as the first appellate court, gave cogent reasons on appreciation of evidence on record, including the partition deed and sale deeds and thereafter held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration that he has become the owner of the land. While interfering with the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, the High Court has again reappreciated the entire evidence on record, which in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC, not permissible. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a grave/manifest error in quashing and setting aside the findings recorded by both the courts below, which were on appreciation of evidence on record. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a grave/manifest error in quashing and setting aside the findings recorded by both the courts below, which were on appreciation of evidence on record. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while exercising the powers under Section 100 CPC. Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the appeal and consequently decreeing the suit, is not sustainable." 15. In another judgment of Gurnam Singh Vs. Lehna Singh [ (2019) 7 SCC 641 ] has held as under:- "Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law." 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.Doddanarayana Reddy Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy [ (2020) 4 SCC 659 ], while discussing the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the finding of fact under Section 100 CPC has held that though the High Court could have taken different view acting as the trial Court but once, two Courts below have returned finding which is not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor against any provision of law neither could it be said that any judge acting judicially and reasonably could have reach such a findings, then, the Court cannot be said to have erred. Relying upon the previous judgment the Supreme Court has held as under:- "Recently in another judgment reported as State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, it was held that a concurrent finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on records and documents. The Court held as under: '16. When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose, J. as His Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors., AIR 1943 Nagpur 117 Para 43).' 17. The upshot of discussion is that the instant second appeal is not liable to succeed and same deserves to be dismissed and hereby dismissed. 18. Since second appeal has been dismissed on merits, counsel for appellant has prayed that at least both Courts below have found that appellant is in possession of suit property since 1998, therefore, some reasonable time may be given to appellant to vacate and handover the possession of suit property to respondents. 19. Counsel for respondent on instructions of respondents has agreed to grant six months time to appellant to vacate and handover the possession of suit property. 20. In view of above, appellant is granted six months time to vacate and handover the suit property to respondents-plaintiff. There is no order as to costs. 21. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 22. Record of both Courts below be sent back forthwith.