JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. 1. This civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Beawar, District Ajmer (for brevity “the learned Appellate Court”) in Civil Appeal No. 1/2010 (CIS No. 23/2014) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Beawar (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) dismissing the Civil Suit No. 139/2002 (256/82) filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) for permanent injunction, have been upheld. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents stating therein that she is in occupation of a wooden cabin lying on the Chabutri (platform) in front of her residential house situated in Diggi Mohalla, Nagar Parishad Marg, Beawar, District Ajmer as tenant from which she was carrying on business for last three years. Alleging that the defendants wanted to forcibly dispossess her from the wooden cabin, the decree as aforesaid prayed for. 3. The defendant No. 4 in his written statement submitted that the plaintiff has constructed the wooden cabin on municipal land illegally for which she has been issued notice by the Municipal Council. 4. On the basis of pleading of the respective parties, the learned trial Court framed 7 Issues. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009 and civil first appeal preferred there-against by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.07.2019. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the plaintiff, referring to the provision of Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for brevity, “the Act of 1959”), would submit that it does not apply where steps are constructed over the drain in any public street. He submits that since the plaintiff has constructed steps to reach the wooden cabin, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be quashed and set aside. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2019 be quashed and set aside and the civil suit filed by her be allowed. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2019 be quashed and set aside and the civil suit filed by her be allowed. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff recording a categorical finding also based on admission of the plaintiff during her cross-examination as PW-1 that the wooden cabin under her possession was constructed on the drain, the municipal property. She has further admitted during her deposition that before its construction, no permission from the Municipal Council was obtained. The findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court while re-appreciating the evidence on record and it has further been held that possession of the plaintiff over the wooden cabin placed on the public land, is as of trespasser and no injunction could be issued against the true owner. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff before this Court also that the wooden cabin has been placed on the drain, the land belonging to the Municipal Council without any authority of law. Reliance placed by him on Section 203 of the Act of 1959 is wholly misconceived as it envisages conviction of any person who makes any encroachment in any land or space not being private property, whether such land or space belongs to or vests in the Board or not, except steps over drain in any public street. Indisputably, it is not a case of construction of steps by the plaintiff over the drain. 8. Since, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts have not been shown to be suffering from any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference of this Court under Section 100 CPC, the civil second appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. The stay application also stands disposed of.