JUDGMENT 1. Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.2/2021 by Additional District Judge, Nenwa, District Bundi, whereby plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction has been allowed and appellants- defendants have been restrained not to dispossess the plaintiff from the house in question and not to interfere in his possession nor to sale the property in question to any other person. 2. Counsel for appellants-defendants has vehemently argued that learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2010 and Appellate Court committed jurisdictional error and perversity in passing the decree for permanent injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff and against appellants-defendants. Counsel for appellants has argued that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and he could not have instituted civil suit against his adopted father during his lifetime. Counsel for appellants submits that suit property was self-acquired property of Mukut Bihari and he has executed a will in favour of Hanuman who is son of brother of Mukut Bihari. Counsel for appellants submits that on the basis of will dated 6.6.2006 executed by Mukut Bihari in favour of Hanuman, Hanuman is the owner of suit property and decree for permanent injunction has been passed against appellants including Hanuman is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. It appears from record that the instant appeal arises out of simpliciter suit for permanent injunction instituted by respondent- plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff came out with a case that he is adopted son of Mukut Bihari who executed registered adoption deed dated 16.11.1995 in his favour and plaintiff is residing with his adopted father Mukut Bihari in the house in question since during his lifetime. Plaintiff instituted the present suit making an allegation that defendants No.2 to 5 (who are present appellants) are inclined to dispossess the plaintiff as well as his adopted father (defendant No.1) from the house in question and are inclined to sell the house in question, therefore, the simpliciter suit for permanent injunction was instituted. Appellants who are defendants No.2 to 5 in the suit have submitted their written statements. Appellants who are defendants No.2 to 5 in the suit have submitted their written statements. In the written statement, appellants have contended that plaintiff put his lock over the house in question during the lifetime of his adopted father and later on, on his askance of adopted father, lock was opened and plaintiff was in possession of suit property. 5. It appears that though plaintiff also impleaded his adopted father Mukut Bihari as defendant No.1 in the suit but he neither filed any written statement and was later on expired, therefore, his name was deleted from the title of suit. The suit was only contested by defendants No.2 to 5 (it means present appellants). 6. The question in the present civil suit for injunction arose before the Court that whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of institution of suit? The learned trial Court entered into the enquiry of title of suit property and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 10.4.2010. However, the Appellate Court, considered that since the present suit is simpliciter suit for permanent injunction, therefore, the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in holding an enquiry of title and on that basis dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court observed that in the written statement submitted by defendants No.2 to 5 (appellants herein), they admits the possession of plaintiff over house in question, on the title of suit. Further the Appellate Court observed that witnesses of defendants, DW2 Deendayal admits in his cross-examination that plaintiff Omprakash was adopted by Mukut Bihari and he was residing with Mukut Bihari in the house in question. DW3 in his cross- examination admits that plaintiff Omprakash since 25-26 years is residing with Mukut Bihari. He admits that he never saw plaintiff Omprakash to have any manhandling with his adopted father Mukut Bihari. On such appreciation of evidence, the first Appellate Court concluded that the suit property was undisputedly in possession of plaintiff at the time of institution of suit. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs. Manjit Kaur [ (2019) 8 SCC 729 ] the first Appellate Court observed that when plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit property, he cannot be dispossessed by defendants without following due course of law. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs. Manjit Kaur [ (2019) 8 SCC 729 ] the first Appellate Court observed that when plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit property, he cannot be dispossessed by defendants without following due course of law. On such consideration of law and evidence, the first Appellate Court has passed the decree for permanent injunction against appellants- defendants as mentioned hereinabove. 7. This Court finds that appellant-defendant Hanuman is claiming his ownership right and possession over the suit property of Mukut Bihari on the basis of will dated 25.2.2007. The first Appellate Court has not passed any findings in relation to alleged will. The first Appellate Court has only observed that plaintiff has adopted son of Mukut Bihari on the basis of registered adoption deed dated 16.11.1995 and adoption deed has not been disputed by defendants as well. The Appellate Court has observed that on the date of institution of suit and prior to that, plaintiff was in possession of suit property and was residing with Mukut Bihari. Defendants, in their evidence could not show that the suit property was not in possession of plaintiff and defendants Hanuman was in possession of suit property on the basis of alleged will. Rather on the contrary, defendants in their written statement have admitted the possession of plaintiff and DW2 as well as DW3 admits that plaintiff being adopted son of Mukut Bihari was residing in the suit property. In the civil suit for permanent injunction, the scope is limited to enquire about the possession of plaintiff. Since in the present case, plaintiff has been found in possession of suit property that too having in lawful possession being adopted son of Mukut Bihari, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such fact finding recorded by the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court has recorded fact findings of possession in favour of respondent-plaintiff only after appreciation of evidence and reasons have been assigned to set aside the judgment of the trial Court. 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. The first Appellate Court has recorded fact findings of possession in favour of respondent-plaintiff only after appreciation of evidence and reasons have been assigned to set aside the judgment of the trial Court. 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ] has held as under:- 'It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact, being the first Appellate Court. It is true that the lower Appellate Court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial Court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial Court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible. one drawn by the lower appellate Court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arriaved at without evidence. ' 9. The aforesaid judgment has been affirmed and relied upon by the Supreme Court in another judgment of Gurnam Singh Vs. Lehna Singh [ (2019) 7 SCC 641 ]. 10. In a recent judgment of Murthy & Ors. Vs. C. Saradambal & Ors. [ (2022) 3 SCC 209 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the powers of the first Appellate Court to interfere with findings of the trial Court and to reverse findings of the trial Court has placed reliance upon a celebrated judgment in case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari [ (2001) 3 SCC 179 ] has held as under:- "61. In this regard, we may usefully rely upon a judgment of this Court in Santosh Hazari V. Purushottam Tiwari, wherein it has been observed that while writing a judgment of reversal, an appellate court must remain conscious of two principles. Purushottam Tiwari [ (2001) 3 SCC 179 ] has held as under:- "61. In this regard, we may usefully rely upon a judgment of this Court in Santosh Hazari V. Purushottam Tiwari, wherein it has been observed that while writing a judgment of reversal, an appellate court must remain conscious of two principles. Firstly, the findings of facts based on conflicting evidence arrived at by the trial court must weigh with the appellate Court, more so when the findings are based on oral evidence recorded by the same Presiding Judge who authors the judgment. If, on an appraisal of the evidence, it is found that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate court is entitled to interfere with the findings of fact but by assigning cogent reasons for doing so. Otherwise, the findings of the trial court should not be interfered with lightly on a question of fact. Secondly, while reversing a findings of facat, it is necessary that the appellate court assigns its own reasons for doing so. This is especially so in case there are further appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as the first appellate court is the final court of facts and the said findings are immune from challenge in a second appeal." 11. On appreciation of aforesaid proposition of law, it is clear that fact findings either recorded by two Courts below or recorded by the first Appellate Court, if based on appreciation of evidence not to be interfered with by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC unless same is not perverse or otherwise against settled proposition of law. Counsel for appellants could not point out that the findings of first appellate court suffer from any infirmity/illegality or misreading/non-reading of evidence. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Subsequently is sine qua non for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC and to entertain the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 12. Stay application as well as any other pending application(s),if any, stand(s) disposed of.