JUDGMENT 1. Appellant-plaintiffs (hereafter referred to ’plaintiffs’) have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2017 passed in civil regular appeal No. 78/2012 (34/2011) by the Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur whereby and whereunder dismissing the appeal affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.82/84 (40/83) by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. D.), Sawaimadhopur whereby and whereunder plaintiffs’ civil suit, for declaration and permanent injunction, has been dismissed on merits. 2. Heard counsel for appellants and perused impugned judgments and record. 3. From perusal of record, it reveals that appellantplaintiffs claimed their ownership and possession over the plot in question bearing Plot No.27 measuring 150 Square yards (Ex.1) situated at village Bhagwatgarh, Tehsil Chauth ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur on the basis of a patta dated 23.12.1974, issued by the Gram Panchayat. In patta dated 23.12.1974(Ex.1), it is indicated that the plot is part of the land of Khasra No.1779/2. Both courts below have concurrently recorded a fact finding that patta of plaintiffs does not match with the suit plot. It has come on record that the land of Khasra No.1779/2 belongs to defendants, which are recorded in their names and revenue record of Jamabandi and Girdawari (Ex.A1 and A2) has been placed on record. Both courts below have recorded a fact findings that plaintiffs could not produce any evidence to show their possession, except producing the patta in question. Rather, defendants have been found in possession of the suit plot. The report of the Court Commissioner (Ex.A5) to verify the possession of defendants over the suit plot. 4. Learned counsel for appellant-plaintiffs argued that the patta dated 23.12.1974(Ex.1) issued in favour of appellant-plaintiffs is valid and they are entitled to get plot No.27 out of Khasra No.1779/2 allotted to them. 5. Both courts below have observed that the patta produced by plaintiffs does not match with the suit plot and the land of Khasra No.1779/2 is recorded as ’Gair Mumkin Pahad’ in the revenue record (Ex.A1) which is in the name of defendants. 6. This Court finds that two courts below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit qua defendants. 6. This Court finds that two courts below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit qua defendants. If plaintiffs claimed any right on the basis of their patta dated 23.12.1974(Ex.1) issued by the Gram Panchayat, they should have asked for identification of their plot from the Gram Panchayat and for securing their possession thereupon. Undisputedly, plaintiffs have not impleaded the Gram Panchayat as party in the present suit. The counsel for appellants could not show any evidence on record except the patta in question to establish the possession of plaintiffs over the suit plot. 7. The counsel for appellants could not point out any perversity on the part of courts below in recording findings, which are based on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. In absence of only perversity, or when findings are neither based on surmises and conjunctures nor the same do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Substantial questions of law are sine-qua-non to exercise the jurisdiction of high court under Section 100 of CPC. 8. The Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari [ (2001) 3 SCC 179 ], held as under: "14. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis." 9. In case of State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal [ (2019)8 SCC 637 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on records and documents. The Hon’ble 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)." 10. In another case C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy and ors. [ (2020)4 SCC 659 ], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. 11. 11. In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below, this court is not inclined to interfere with impugned judgments, there is no force in the second appeal as no substantial question of law arises in the matter, hence the same is hereby dismissed. No Costs 12. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand(s) disposed of. 13. Record be sent back forthwith.