JUDGMENT Sudesh Bansal, J. - Appellant-defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2018 passed in civil regular appeal No. 08/2018 by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Deeg, Bharatpur whereby and whereunder following directions have been issued on the civil suit No. 37/2014 filed by respondent-plaintiffs, which was dismissed by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. D.) Deeg, District Bharatpur vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016, in following terms:- ^^vr% vihykFkhZ@oknhx.k xqykcflag oxSjg }kjk ÁLrqr vihy fo:} fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 28-04-2016 ,rn~}kjk Lohdkj dh tkdj ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 28-04-2016 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa ÁR;FkhZ@Áfroknh dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mlds }kjk lkoZtfud pkSd esa fufeZr dh xbZ dPph nhokj ftls okni= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa ekdZ chŒlhŒ ls nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS ,oa uD'ks esa cjax lq[kZ ekdZ ,ŒchŒlhŒMhŒ ls nf'kZr Hkwfe ij Mkyh xbZ feV~Vh dks Lo;a ds [kpsZ ls ,d ekg esa gVokdj iwoZ fLFkfr dk;e djsa rFkk Áfroknh dks tfj, LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd og lkoZtfud pkSd@jkLrk ftls okni= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa cjax lq[kZ ekdZ ,ŒchŒlhŒMhŒ ls nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] ij tcju dCtk ij fuekZ.k ugha djs ,oa oknhx.k dks lkoZtfud pkSd@jkLrs ds mi;ksx miHkksx djus ls oafpr ugha djs rFkk oknhx.k ds edku dh nf{k.kh nhoky esa fudys gq, eks[kys dks cUn ugha djsA [kpkZ vihy i{kdkjku viuk&viuk cgu djsxsaA fMØh ipkZ mijksDrkuqlkj eqfrZc gksA fu.kZ; dh iqfr ds lkFk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k vfoyEc ykSVk;k tk;sA** 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and record. 3. Counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that the trial court after appreciation of evidence of both parties dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and the first appellate court has committed perversity in setting aside the judgment of trial court and decreeing plaintiffs' suit. 4. This court finds that the dispute between parties is in respect of Chowk and way situated towards side of the defendant's plot. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant has put some heap of sand by 5 feet and has raised one sand wall on the way/chowk in question. The defendant, in his written statement, has not disputed the existence of the way towards southern side of his plot, however he submitted that no encroachment on the way/chowk has been made. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant has put some heap of sand by 5 feet and has raised one sand wall on the way/chowk in question. The defendant, in his written statement, has not disputed the existence of the way towards southern side of his plot, however he submitted that no encroachment on the way/chowk has been made. The defendant submitted that there is a pakka road adjoining to the defendant's house towards southern side. First appellate court, while accepting the admission of defendant in respect of public chowk and width of road as 19 feet in question has issued directions for removal of sand and sand wall from such public chowk and public road. First appellate court has also relied upon the map, sanctioned by the Nagar Palika, Deeg, Bharatpur dated 29.04.1994 (Ex. A/1) in respect of house of defendant. In this map, towards southern side of defendant's plot, 19 feet wide road has been indicated. Since there is clear admission of the defendant and well evident by his own document of sanctioned map that the disputed land in public road and public chowk, therefore, the first appellate court has decreed plaintiffs' suit and has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, dismissing plaintiffs' suit. 5. This Court does not find any perversity in fact findings recorded by the first appellate court as same are based on appreciation of evidence. Admission is the best piece of evidence. The dispute is in respect of public chowk and public road. Even if there may be some discrepancies in the evidence of plaintiff and his witness, defendant-appellant cannot allow to claim any right to retain his encroachment over public chowk and public road. 6. In the present case, alleged encroachment is only in the shape of putting some heap of sand and raising a sand wall. 7. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ] the Apex Court 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. 7. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ] the Apex Court 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 opinion of 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 in inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence." 8. In a recent judgment of Murthy & Ors. v. 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 v. 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. 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 fact, 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." 9. Both aforesaid judgments have been relied upon and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. v. C. Jayarama Reddy and ors. [ (2020)4 SCC 659 ], for not interfering with findings of the first appellate court. Thus, there is no dispute about proposition of law that the first appellate court has jurisdiction to upset the judgment and findings of the trial court, if the same are perverse and contrary to the settled proposition of law. 10. This Court finds that the first appellate court has acted well within its jurisdiction and the reversal of findings are based on due appreciation of evidence by assigning reasons. Such findings do not suffer from any perversity. Learned counsel for appellant also could not point out that findings of first appellate court suffer from any infirmity/illegality or misreading/non-reading of evidence. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, substantial question of law 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. No costs. 11. All other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.