JUDGMENT : 1. Since both appeals are arising out of same suit and appeal, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard on admission. 3. Second Appeal No. 178 of 2023 has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2021 passed by First Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.114-A/2019 to the extent the learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2019 passed by learned Second Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 16A/2012 by which the decree of eviction has been passed against the plaintiff. 4. Second Appeal No. 285 of 2023 has been preferred by the defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2021 passed by First Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.114-A/2019, whereby, the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2019 passed by learned Second Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 16A/2012 to the extent the restitution, compensation to the tune of Rs. 7500/- granted by the learned trial Court. 5. The parties to this appeal shall be referred to hereinafter as per their description in the trial Court. 6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff has filed civil suit on 02.05.2009 for permanent injunction mainly contending that the plaintiff has taken one shop situated in the complex near Police Station- Telibandha on monthly rent @ Rs. 6500/- from defendant No. 1 since 1997 (referred to as “suit property”). The defendants are threatening him to dispossess from the shop forcibly, as such, on 02.05.2009 they have threatened him. The plaintiff has lodged complaint before the Police Station-Telibandha. It has also been contended that the defendant cannot dispossess him without following due process of law. The plaintiff apprehends that they may take step to dispossess him forcibly, which has necessitated him to file present suit for permanent injunction. 7. The defendants No. 1 & 2 have filed written statement mainly contending that the defendants have taken shop No. 6 from Chhattisgarh Eye Hospital Trust since 1992 @ Rs. 1000/- per month. The plaintiff apprehends that they may take step to dispossess him forcibly, which has necessitated him to file present suit for permanent injunction. 7. The defendants No. 1 & 2 have filed written statement mainly contending that the defendants have taken shop No. 6 from Chhattisgarh Eye Hospital Trust since 1992 @ Rs. 1000/- per month. Defendant No. 1 is an old person and is running S.T.D. P.C.O. It has also been contended that defendant No. 1 has two sons, they are engaged in other business as such, he has employed the plaintiff to look after the business. It has also been contended that the plaintiff is working with him for the last 2-3 years and gained confident and on his advice, he started photography business. It has also been contended that the identification of the shop was not correctly mentioned in the plaint as there is contradiction in the pleading made by him. It has emphatically denied that the plaintiff is tenant. It has also been contended that defendant No. 1 has purchased one digital camera-Nikon D-40 in the year 2004-05 and also purchased one computer in the name of his wife and has given to the plaintiff to run the business on behalf of defendant No. 1. It has also been contended that defendant No. 1 has not executed any agreement with the plaintiff or taken security money of Rs. 1 lac. It has also been contended that defendant No. 1 has not published any advertisement in Dainik Bhaskar for giving his shop on rent. It has also been contended that the report which has been lodged, is forged and fabricated and would pray for rejection of the suit. 8. Defendant No. 3 has filed separate written statement denying the allegations made in the plaintiff supporting the stand taken by defendant No. 1 & 3. Defendant No. 3 has also filed counter claim for dispossession of the plaintiff from the shop. It has been contended that plaintiff No. 1 has threatened defendant No. 1 & his sons that if they entered into the shop, they will be implicated in the false criminal cases. It has also been contended that defendant No. 3 has paid rent from 04.05.2009 to March 2011 to the tune of Rs. It has been contended that plaintiff No. 1 has threatened defendant No. 1 & his sons that if they entered into the shop, they will be implicated in the false criminal cases. It has also been contended that defendant No. 3 has paid rent from 04.05.2009 to March 2011 to the tune of Rs. 21,000/- to the Chhattisgarh Eye Hospital Trust and also paid rent of S.T.D.P.C.O. in fact that the plaintiff has dispossessed defendants causing financial loss, therefore, she is entitled to get Rs. 1,26,000/- from 04.05.2009 to 04.02.2011 as damages and also prayed for grant of vacant possession of the suit property. 9. On pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed as many as 7 issues. The plaintiff to substantiate his case, has examined the witnesses namely Muzaffar Hussain (plaintiff-PW/1), Arvind Sharma (PW/2), Irfan Raza (PW/3), Kumari Rukhmani Verma (PW/4), Shatrughan Verma (PW/5), Jogeshwar Rajput (PW/6). The plaintiff to substantiate his case, has exhibited documents namely license under Shop and Establishment Act (Ex. P/1), Bill (Ex. P/2), First page of passbook (Ex. P/3), Telephone bill issued by BSNL (Ex. P/4 & P/5), Payment receipt (Ex. P/6 to P/8), Electricity Bill (Ex. P/9 to P/13), Telephone Bill (Ex. P/14 to P/15), License under the Shop and Establishment Act (Ex. P/16), Police Report (Ex. P/7), Bill of computer purchase (Ex. P/18 & P/19), statement of account (Ex. P/20 to P/21), Bank certificate (Ex. P/22), Notice (Ex. P/23), Negative (Ex. P/24), Photographs (Ex. P/25 to P/27), License (Ex. P/28 to P/31), Paper cutting (Ex. P/32). 10. The defendant No. 3 examined herself as DW-1, defendant No. 1- Kasturilal Sharma examined himself as DW-2, Balkar Singh (DW-3), K.G. Sood (DW-4), Balram Sundarani (DW-5), Laxmi Narayan Sahu, Bhagwat Rajdeo (DW-6), Niraj Khatwani (DW-7). The defendant to substantiate his case has exhibited the documents namely copy of deposition recorded in criminal case (Ex. D/1), postal acknowledgment (Ex. D/2 to D/12), demand note (Ex. D/13), license under Shops and Establishment Act (Ex. D/14), license (Ex. D/15 to D/18), Bill (Ex. D/19 to D/20), complaint to the police (Ex. D/23 to D/25), Telephone Bill (Ex. D/27 to D/29), receipt given by BSNL (Ex. D/30 to D/55), Bill given BSNL (Ex. D/56 to D/79), Power of attorney (Ex. D/80), statement recorded in criminal case (Ex. D/81 to D/82), copy of the judgment (Ex. D/83). 11. D/15 to D/18), Bill (Ex. D/19 to D/20), complaint to the police (Ex. D/23 to D/25), Telephone Bill (Ex. D/27 to D/29), receipt given by BSNL (Ex. D/30 to D/55), Bill given BSNL (Ex. D/56 to D/79), Power of attorney (Ex. D/80), statement recorded in criminal case (Ex. D/81 to D/82), copy of the judgment (Ex. D/83). 11. The plaintiff in his examination in chief by way of affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC has reiterated the facts which he has taken in the plaint. The witness was cross-examined by the defendants wherein he has admitted that he has not produced documents that defendant No. 1- Kasturilal Sharma has published the advertisement. He has again admitted that he has not produced any documents that the advertisement has been published by Kasturilal Sharma. He has also admitted that he has not produced any documents regarding rent agreement with defendant No. 1. He has also admitted that he has not pleaded in the plaint regarding documentation by defendant No. 1. He has also admitted that he has not produced any receipt that electricity bill is being paid by him. He has admitted that he has not produced any electricity bill from 1997 to 2009 but voluntarily said that he has produced the bills from 07.11.2008 to 10.12.2008. He has also admitted that in the Ex. P/18 & P/19, shop No. 6 has not been mentioned. He has also stated that no date has been mentioned in Ex. P/25 to P/27. He has also admitted that he has not produced any agreement between Kasturilal Sharma, Nitin Kaliya, Janki Kaliya and Chhattisgarh Eye Hospital. He has also admitted that he has not produced any documents which establishes that he is tenant of Kasturilal Sharma, Nitin Kaliya & Janki Kaliya.He has also admitted that he has not produced any rent receipt given by Kasturilal Sharma. He has stated that the rent was entered in the register and photocopy has been produced. He has also admitted that he has submitted photocopy of Dainik Bhaskar dated 15.04.1997 but has not produced original newspaper. 12. Witness Arvind Verma (PW-2) has admitted that the affidavit was prepared by the counsel and has also admitted that the information of the case was given by the plaintiff. He has also admitted that he has submitted photocopy of Dainik Bhaskar dated 15.04.1997 but has not produced original newspaper. 12. Witness Arvind Verma (PW-2) has admitted that the affidavit was prepared by the counsel and has also admitted that the information of the case was given by the plaintiff. Other witness Imran Raza (PW-3) has also examined in chief by way of affidavit, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he is not aware that who is the tenant of the disputed shop. Kumari Rukhmani Verma (PW-3) has admitted that she has not made any attempt to see the license of S.T.D.P.C.O. She has also admitted that she is not aware that the defendant has started photo studio under whose advice. Shatrughan Verma (PW-4) has also filed affidavit as examination in chief and in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he is not aware that the Chhattisgarh Eye Hospital has allotted the shop to whom. 13. Jogeshwar Rajput has stated that when the advertisement was published in the newspaper then Muzaffar Hussain came to his house and he has taken him to Kasturilal Sharma’s house. He has admitted that when the paper publication was shown to him he is not aware that who was tenant of the shop. He has admitted that he cannot say who has published the advertisement in the newspaper. He has also admitted that the tenancy agreement was not recorded before him but the rent was finalized @ Rs. 2000/- per month. He has denied that Kasturilal Sharma has kept the plaintiff as his employee. 14. The plaintiff has examined one Nizamuddin who is working as journalist in newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, who has stated that advertisement was published on 15.04.1997 and photocopy was exhibited as Ex. P/32. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that Ex. P/32 is not the original but it is photocopy. He has also admitted that without original, photocopy cannot be made. He has also admitted that in the press the original newspaper dated 15.04.1997 is not available. He has also admitted that his department is separate from advertisement and he is working in editorial department which has no connection with advertisement department. He has also admitted that he cannot say that who has brought the advertisement to the advertisement department for publication. He has also admitted that he has not received any summon from the court to adduce evidence. 15. He has also admitted that he cannot say that who has brought the advertisement to the advertisement department for publication. He has also admitted that he has not received any summon from the court to adduce evidence. 15. The defendant witness Smt. Janki Kaliya (DW-1) in her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the stand which she has taken in her written statement and counter claim. The witness was cross-examined and has stated that her husband had kept the plaintiff as employee but she is not aware how much salary is being paid. She has denied that they have published any notice for giving the shop on rent on 15.04.1997. She has also denied that the plaintiff is tenant of shop on 1997. She has voluntarily said he was employed in 1995. She has admitted that they are not the owner of the shop but it is rented shop. 16. Kasturilal Sharma (DW-2) reiterating the stand taken in the written statement has submitted his affidavit as examination-in-chief and in cross-examination, he has denied that he has published the advertisement for giving the shop on rent and also denied that the plaintiff has taken the shop on rent in 1997. He has denied that the plaintiff after taking the shop on rent has done the decoration of the shop and purchased the furniture from own income. He has also denied that the plaintiff has taken bank loan for establishment of shop of furniture or he has purchased camera and computer. 17. Balkar Singh (DW-3) has submitted affidavit as examination-in-chief supporting the case of the defendant. The witness was cross-examined wherein he has stated that the defendant has taken shop on rent in 1992 from Chhattisgarh Charitable Eye Hospital. K.G. Sood (DW-4) has also examined-in-chief by way of affidavit supported the case of the defendant. The witness was cross-examined wherein he has stated that the defendant has taken the shop on rent and was paying rent. Balram Sundarani (DW-5) was extensively cross-examined by the plaintiff and he has stated that the plaintiff himself told him that he is working there and he used to do photography also. 18. Laxmi Narayan Sahu, who has worked as carpenter in the shop of Kasturilal Sharm, in his cross-examination has stated that he has done the work of S.T.D.P.C.O. with the help of two labours for 10-15 days. 18. Laxmi Narayan Sahu, who has worked as carpenter in the shop of Kasturilal Sharm, in his cross-examination has stated that he has done the work of S.T.D.P.C.O. with the help of two labours for 10-15 days. He has also stated that when he has done the work of S.T.D.P.C.O. at that time, defendant No. 1 started the S.T.D.P.C.O. Bhagwat Rajdeo (DW-6) who has also supported case of the defendant and has stated that defendant No. 1 has taken the shop on rent in the year 1995-96 and since he used to go for depositing the rent therefore, he is aware. He has stated that the plaintiff has told him that he is in service with the defendant. 19. Niraj Khatwani (DW-7) examined by way of affidavit and the witness in his cross-examination has stated that Kasturilal Sharma has taken the shop on rent. He has stated that Navin S.T.D.P.C.O. shop was opened in the year 1995. He has stated that the plaintiff used to do photography when Navin or Kasturilal Sharma was not available in the shop then Muzaffar Hussain used to talk regarding payment to be taken from customers. 20. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record has dismissed the suit by recording its finding on Issue No. 3 that defendant No. 3 is tenant of the shop and the plaintiff has taken possession over the shop as encroacher, as such defendant No.3 is entitled to get vacant possession. Learned trial court has recorded its finding that the electricity bill (Ex. D/57 to D/80) are in the name of defendant No. 3. Similarly the rent receipt (Ex. D/1 to D/12) which is also in the name of defendant No. 3. The trial Court has also recorded its finding that the plaintiff is unable to prove that he is the tenant of the defendant and also admitted that the shop is in possession of the defendant and defendant No. 3 has taken it on rent from Chhattisgarh Eye Hospital, as such, the plaintiff is unable to establish sub-tenancy, therefore, he became encroacher. The plaintiff has pleaded that he is paying rent to the tune of Rs. 6500/- but he has not deposited the rent during the pendency of the suit before the Court to show his bonafide. Thus, it is established that he is utilizing the court’s proceedings to illegally encroach the suit property. The plaintiff has pleaded that he is paying rent to the tune of Rs. 6500/- but he has not deposited the rent during the pendency of the suit before the Court to show his bonafide. Thus, it is established that he is utilizing the court’s proceedings to illegally encroach the suit property. Learned trial Court has also granted Rs. 7500/- per month as damages to defendant No. 3 by allowing the counter claim filed by defendant No. 3. 21. The plaintiff has preferred first appeal before the learned District Judge, Raipur which has been transferred to the First Additional District Judge and registered as Civil Appeal No. 114A/2019 mainly contending that the learned trial Court has not appreciated that pleadings, evidence, material on record and mechanically passed the judgment and decree. Learned trial Court has committed illegality in disbelieving the paper publication (Ex. D/32) which is advertisement issued by the plaintiff. It has also been contended that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the documents in its letter and spirit thus, committed illegality. It has also been contended that the learned trial Court has relied upon Ex. D/15 which is forged one and thus committed illegality and also committed illegality in not recording its finding with regard to the sub-tenancy of the plaintiff as for recording sub-tenancy, no written agreement is required. The case of the plaintiff was also proved by the statement of the plaintiff witness-Jogeshwar Rajput which has also not taken into consideration thus, committed illegality and prayed for quashing of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 22. Learned Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.01.2023 has partly allowed the appeal rejecting the relief of damages/restitution compensation awarded by the trial Court, affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff is unable to prove that he is tenant of respondent No. 3 and upheld the decree of eviction of the plaintiff from the suit property. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred Second Appeal No. 178 of 2023 whereas the defendant being aggrieved with the judgment and decree to the extent that the First Appellate Court has set aside the decree of damages/restitution compensation, has preferred Second Appeal No. 285 of 2023. 23. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred Second Appeal No. 178 of 2023 whereas the defendant being aggrieved with the judgment and decree to the extent that the First Appellate Court has set aside the decree of damages/restitution compensation, has preferred Second Appeal No. 285 of 2023. 23. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant in SA No. 178/2023 would submit that the learned Courts below have committed illegality in discarding the advertisement published in Dainik Bhaskar Raipur by respondent No. 1 on 15.04.1997. He would further submit that the defendant No. 3 who is claiming to be the tenant of Chhattisgarh Netra Chitiksalaya, can file a suit for illegal possession or her forcible dispossession from the suit shop prior to filing of the suit, as such, the counter claim filed by the defendant No. 3 for claiming possession is not tenable. He would further submit that once the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property since 1997, therefore, the Courts below should have passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts below have not considered the evidence, material on record and on perverse finding have passed the impugned order, which suffers from perversity, as such, question of law is involved in the appeal. He would further submit that the defendant has claimed the relief in the suit filed by the plaintiff by filing counter claim which is not permissible in view of the Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. He would further submit that learned Court without appreciating the pleadings, evidence brought on record, has passed the judgment and decree which deserves to be dismissed in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491 and would pray for admission of the appeal. 24. Nilima Mandal & another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491 and would pray for admission of the appeal. 24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant in SA No. 285/2023 would submit that the learned Lower Appellate Court has committed illegality in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to the extent that it has quashed the grant of restitution/ compensation to the defendant No. 3 and would submit that substantial question of law is involved as this relief has been set aside on the basis of perverse finding, as such, substantial question of law exits for admission of the second appeal. 25. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 26. The record of the case would clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff himself admitted in the evidence adduced before the trial Court that he has not produced any agreement with Kasturilal Sharma and he has also admitted that he has not produced any document that Kasturilal Sharma has published the advertisement in the Dainik Bhaskar. He has again admitted that in the cross-examination that he has not produced any document that he was tenant of the defendant. The witness has further stated that he has also not produced any rent receipt given by Kasturilal Sharma but he has stated that he has produced photocopy of the register wherein entry regarding rent is being made out but this register has also not been proved before the trial Court. Similarly the witness has also admitted that he has also not produced the original newspaper of Dainik Bhaskar of 15.04.1997. He has also admitted that he has not produced the electricity bill from 1997 to 2009. Thus, he has not produced any document to demonstrate that he is the tenant of defendant No. 3. Learned Courts below on proper appreciation of evidence has recorded its finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was tenant of defendant No. 3. On the contrary, defendant No. 3 has produced the electricity bill, telephone bill to establish that he has taken shop on rent. Defendant No. 3 witness Smt. Janki Kalia has categorically stated before the trial Court that she has started S.T.D.P.C.O. in the rented shop and her husband used to manage the shop. On the contrary, defendant No. 3 has produced the electricity bill, telephone bill to establish that he has taken shop on rent. Defendant No. 3 witness Smt. Janki Kalia has categorically stated before the trial Court that she has started S.T.D.P.C.O. in the rented shop and her husband used to manage the shop. The defendant was subjected to extensively cross-examination but she remained affirm in her evidence and has stated that the shop was rented shop and the plaintiff has threatened to her husband, son and herself. He has also stated that the plaintiff has filed criminal case against them wherein also they have been acquitted. Similarly, the defendant No.1- Kasturilal Sharma was also examined before the trial Court and has stated before it that he has furnished the shop and also recorded the statement of the carpenter, who has done the work of furnishing. Learned Courts below after appreciating the factual matrix have recorded the findings, which is concurrent finding of the fact. The plaintiff is unable to point out any perversity or illegality in the order, which warrants any interference by this Court. 27. Submission made by learned senior counsel for the appellant in SA No. 178/2023 that defendant No. 3 should have filed separate suit instead of claiming the relief in the suit filed by the plaintiff by filing counter claim, is also incorrect submission as by way of filing counter claim, defendant No. 3 also affixed proper court fee and valued the suit for ejectment @ Rs. 12,000/- and also claimed the decree for ejectment of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 has also filed documents in support of her case. The plaintiff has also filed reply to the counter claim. The learned trial Court on pleadings of the parties, has framed additional issue on 13.01.2012 regarding maintainability of the counter claim. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence, material on record has recorded the finding that the plaintiff was not the tenant of the defendant No. 3 and he was encroacher, therefore, the defendant No. 3 cannot file suit under Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the plaintiff for ejecting him from the suit property. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence, material on record has recorded the finding that the plaintiff was not the tenant of the defendant No. 3 and he was encroacher, therefore, the defendant No. 3 cannot file suit under Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the plaintiff for ejecting him from the suit property. Even in the evidence brought on record, it has been clearly proved that the plaintiff is unable to prove that he was tenant of defendant No. 3 as such he was encroacher, therefore, the counter claim was rightly filed by defendant No. 3, which has been rightly allowed after appreciating the evidence and material on record. Thus, the submission made by learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the counter claim is not maintainable, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 28. The submission of learned Senior Advocate for the appellant in SA No. 178/2023 is that the learned Courts below have committed illegality in not relying upon the newspaper which clearly indicates that defendant No. 1 has issued advertisement and in pursuance of that advertisement only, he became tenant of defendant No. 1. This submission cannot be considered in view of the provisions of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which clearly provides that the presumption as to Gazette, Newspaper, Private Act of Parliament and other documents have to be drawn if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and it produced from proper custody. This Section clearly provides that presumption can be drawn if the newspaper is produced from the proper custody and kept in substantially in the form required by law. Thus, the plaintiff should have proved before the Court below that the newspaper is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. In the evidence, it has been clearly admitted by the plaintiff that he has not produced the original newspaper and even the person who has given advertisement for publication was not examined. Even the person namely Nizamuddin who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, he has admitted that he was working in the editorial department of the newspaper not in the advertisement department and both the departments are independent and separate. As such also the requirement of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been proved. Even the person namely Nizamuddin who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, he has admitted that he was working in the editorial department of the newspaper not in the advertisement department and both the departments are independent and separate. As such also the requirement of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been proved. Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- “Section 81- Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents. –– The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or [any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette] of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament 2[of the United Kingdom] printed by the Queen’s Printer, and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody.” 29. The evidentiary value of newspaper has come up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in catena of the decision wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the news items are hearsay secondary evidence unless proved by evidence aliunde. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Raj Shetty & another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1988) 3 SCC 319 has held at paragraph 25 & 26 as under:- “25. As to the first the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty was entitled to tender the newspaper report from the Indian Express of the 29th and the regional newspapers of the 30th along with his statement under s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the accused at the stage of their defence in denial of the charge had summoned the editors of Tamil dailies Malai Mursau and Makkal Kural and the news reporters of the Indian Express and Dina Thanthi to prove the contents of the facts stated in the news item but they dispensed with their examination on the date fixed for the defence evidence. We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspapers is only hearsay evidence. We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspapers is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in s. 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under s. 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspapers report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 26. It is now well-settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspapers is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from appellant no. 2's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. The question as to the admissibility of newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez & Ors., [1969] 3 SCR 603. There the question arose whether Shri George Fernandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was said: "A newspaper report without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible." We need not burden the judgment with many citations. There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of appellant no. 2 at Mangalore. There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of appellant no. 2 at Mangalore. We have therefore no reason to discard the testimony of PW 50 and the seizure witnesses which go to establish that the amount in question was actually recovered at Madras on the 29th and the 30th as alleged.” 30. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K. Kanta & others reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 5 has held at paragraph 48 as under:- “48. Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly 'proved' only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since, the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to depose .about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publication of the came in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent. The evidence of the election petitioner himself or of PW4 and PW5 to prove the contents of the messages and advertisements in the newspaper in our opinion was wrongly admitted and relied upon as evidence of the contents of the statement contained therein.” 31. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Dinesh B.S. Vs. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 851 & 852 of 2011, decided on 27.07.2023] has held at paragraph 15 as under:- “15. To show the error in the reasoning of the High Court on laying much credibility on the newspaper reports, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. Seshadri Naidu quoted Mark Twain who said, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’ re misinformed.” In the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel that an extra judicial confession cannot be given greater credibility only because it is published in a newspaper and is available to the public at large. It is well- established in law that newspaper reports can at best be treated as secondary evidence. This Court in Laxmi Raj Shetty & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1988) 3 SCC 319 held that: “25. .....We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspapers is only hearsay evidence. This Court in Laxmi Raj Shetty & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1988) 3 SCC 319 held that: “25. .....We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspapers is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in s. 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under s. 81 of the Evidence Act toa newspapers report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.” 32. From the above-stated legal position and considering the evidence brought on record, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff has not proved the newspaper cutting as per the provisions contained in Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as such the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity which arisen to have a substantial question of law for admission of the second appeal. 33. Learned counsel for the appellant in SA No. 285/2023 would submit that the learned Courts below have erred in not granting the relief of restitution/ compensation Rs. 7500/- per month, thus committed illegality. Learned First Appellate Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 114-A/2023 has categorically recorded that the relief which is not specifically claimed, cannot be granted. Even the learned trial Court while granting restitution/ compensation Rs. 7500/- per month has neither assigned any reason nor defendant No. 3 was able to prove how he has suffered loss which was required to be proved by defendant No. 3 only. Thus, the lower Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in setting aside the decree passed by the learned trial Court to the extent of denial of restitution/ compensation, which arises to substantial question of law for admission of the appeal. 34. Upon perusal of entire evidence, no substantial question of law requires to be formulated for hearing of this second appeal. There is concurrent finding of fact with regard to the fact that the plaintiff is unable to prove that he was tenant of defendant No. 3, as such, he is encroacher and accordingly, decree of eviction has been passed in the counter claim filed by defendant No. 3. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. & others Vs. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. & others Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy (dead) by Lrs.& others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 659 has held at paragraph 28 as under:- “28. Recently in another judgment reported as State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, it was 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 Court held as under: “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).” 35. This Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the C.P.C. Learned Senior Advocate counsel for appellant in SA No. 178/2023 as well learned counsel for the appellant in SA No. 285/2023 have failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. 36. In view of above, since no substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant cases, these are not fit cases for admission. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed at motion stage itself under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 11 read with Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC. No order as to costs. 37. A decree be drawn up accordingly in both the appeals separately.