JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs has filed the present writ petition with a challenge to the judgment dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short ‘the Second Appellate Authority’), the judgment dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (for short ‘the First Appellate Authority’) and the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Masuda (Ajmer) [for short ‘the trial court’]. 2. The facts in brief of the matter are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit before the trial court under sections 88, 188 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants in regard to land bearing Khasra No. 494 situated at Village Sikhrani, with the contention that a part of land of Khasra No. 494 was allotted to his father on 05.06.1968. It was further stated that the land was cultivated by the father of the petitioners Dulli Chand during his life time and after his death his legal representatives i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.5 were having joint cultivatory possession over the land. It was further stated that even after allotment of the land in favour of the father of the petitioners and they being in continuous possession over the land, the name of their father was not recorded in the revenue record as a ‘gair khatedar’. 3. The written statement was submitted by the respondents/defendants denying the averments made in the plaint. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as eight issues and after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 13.12.2002. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.2002 passed by the trial court, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.12.2014. 6. The judgment dated 16.12.2014 was challenged by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the Second Appellate Authority by way of filing the second appeal and the second appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2019. 7. Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the orders passed by the Revenue Courts are illegal, perverse and contrary to the material available on the record. 6. The judgment dated 16.12.2014 was challenged by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the Second Appellate Authority by way of filing the second appeal and the second appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.06.2019. 7. Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the orders passed by the Revenue Courts are illegal, perverse and contrary to the material available on the record. Counsel further submits that even after allotment of the land in favour of the father of the petitioners, the name of their father was not recorded in the revenue record as a ‘gair khatedar’, though his name is entitled to be recorded as a ‘gair khatedar’. 8. Heard and considered. 9. Counsel for the petitioners has tried to convince this Court by making submissions on the factual matrix but could not point out any illegality in regard to jurisdiction of the Court concerned or any failure of the Court in the procedure prescribed under the law while disposing of the suit and the appeals. 10. The arguments of the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitting that there are erroneous findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Courts. This Court after perusing the judgments passed by the Revenue Courts would like to observe that on all the issues framed before the trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court while recording the finding on each issue minutely examined the record, evaluated the evidence and then after detailed deliberations, the same has been decided. Thus, no infirmity can be found with the findings recorded by the trial court. 11. Further this Court is of the view that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three Revenue Courts are not required to be interferred with as there is no infirmity in the same and requires no interference by this Court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., reported in (1993) 3 SCC 722 , para para 5 of which is 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. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., reported in (1993) 3 SCC 722 , para para 5 of which is 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 inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 12. This Court in the case of Ganga Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (1) RRT 325 held as under: “In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Court, the concurrent findings arrived at by the three Courts below after due appreciation of evidence on record cannot be said to be capricious or perverse and the order impugned passed by the Board does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercised of its extra ordinary jurisdiction.” 13. The power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to see that the authorities have exercised their jurisdiction in proper manner or not. The appreciation of evidence or facts will not be a proper exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corp. of Delhi & Anr. The appreciation of evidence or facts will not be a proper exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corp. of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 has reiterated that High Court cannot act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence to substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the Courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial Tribunals unless the grave and exceptional situations requires interference by the High Court. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “15. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this Article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognized constraints. It can not be exercised like a ‘bull in a china shop’, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 16. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. 16. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice.” 14. In view of the discussion made above and the proposition given by the Hon’ble Courts in the cases referred to above, this Court finds no infirmity in findings given by the trial court and no any kind of perversity in the orders of the Revenue Courts. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. 15. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.