JUDGMENT : Since the parties, facts, property, and issues involved in the present appeals are identical in nature, hence, at the request of learned advocate for the appellant, the matters are taken up for final consideration and Second Appeal No.322 of 2018 is considered as lead matter and the facts are taken from Second Appeal No.322 of 2018. Therefore, all the matters are heard together. 1.1 The present appeal i.e. Second Appeal No.322 of 2018 is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) by the present appellant – original plaintiff, by challenging the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha in Regular Civil Appeal No.05 of 2010 as well as the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Amirgadh in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 1995, whereby the same were dismissed, which were for permanent injunction. 1.2 The present appeal i.e. Second Appeal No.321 of 2018 is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” by the present appellant – original plaintiff, by challenging the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha in Regular Civil Appeal No.04 of 2010 as well as the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Amirgadh in Regular Civil Suit No.25 of 1995, whereby the same were dismissed, which were for permanent injunction. 2. It is relevant to note that the present Second Appeal is filed in the year 2018, but it was never proceeded, and is pending for admission since long. 3. The short facts giving rise to the present Regular Civil Appeal are that though learned Civil Judge answered the issue Nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff that plaintiff is in possession and ownership property, of the suit however, learned Civil Judge answered the issue No. 3 against the plaintiff. Further, learned Civil Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that defendants had not filed any reply of the amended plaint produced by the plaintiff vide Exh. 75. That decision of the learned Civil Judge with regard to Issue No. 3 is false and against the facts on record. Further, learned Civil Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that defendants had not filed any reply of the amended plaint produced by the plaintiff vide Exh. 75. That decision of the learned Civil Judge with regard to Issue No. 3 is false and against the facts on record. That learned Civil Judge has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff on record. Further, learned Civil Judge has also not taken into consideration the Panchnam vide Exhs. 85 & 86. Further, trial Court has also not taken into consideration the written arguments submitted by the plaintiff vide Exh. 108. That trial Court has not considered the fact that defendants have. The rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from appellate decrees not produced any oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is void and against the established principles of law and therefore, it is prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and to grant the relief as claimed in the R.C.S. No. 17 of 1995. Consequently, the same are dismissed by the Court and hence, being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Mr. Himansu M Padhya, the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The suggested substantial question of law as framed in paragraph No.2 of the present appeal memo is as under: (i) "Whether, the learned trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction when defendant was never appear for producing any evidence or prove his written statement and there was no dispute with respect to the title or the possession of the suit property ?" (ii) "Whether, the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit and appeal when on the date of filing of the suit, the original plaintiff was holding the title over the suit property and was in possession of the suit land?" (iii) "Whether the court below are came to the conclusion that the plaintiff instead of the land possessed by him admeasuring area of 420 Sq.ft. possessed and constructed more than area possessed by him ?" (iv) "Whether the court below are justified in dismissing the suit and appeal when the defendant failed to produce any such evidence to support the written statement and defendant failed to produce any evidence before the lower court ?" (v) "Can the suit for permanent injunction be dismissed when all requirements and conditions are being fulfilled with respect to the title and/or possession of the suit land by the original plaintiff?" 6. Mr. Himansu M Padhya, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the courts below have committed gross error or law and miserably failed in not considering the materials produced on record with a view to demonstrating the ownership, title as well as possession of the original plaintiff qua the suit land. Furthermore, he has submitted that the courts below have defectively made present appellant non-suited, and have relied upon extraneous and non-germane factors, while deciding the proceeding. Furthermore, he has submitted that the courts below have wrongly came to the conclusion that there was no way on the eastern side of the suit property. But looking to the sanad at Exh. 107, it is clearly reveled that there was a way of 3 meter. Furthermore, he has submitted that the courts below have erred in not considering the sale deed at Exh.106 in which it is specifically mentioned that there was a passage of 3 metre on west side. Furthermore, he has submitted that the courts below have materially erred in not considering another vital aspect of the matter that the defendants had never disputed the title and/or ownership of the suit land and learned Judge has only considered the reply/written statement filed by the defendant below Exh.5 and came to the conclusion that plaintiff has not come with the clean hand and, therefore, the relief prayed in the proceeding cannot be granted. Furthermore, he has submitted that the courts below have relied upon the report Panchnama of the Court Commissioner, however, no examination of any witness is done and, therefore, he has submitted that the courts below have committed gross error in law and, therefore, he has submitted that the present appeal is requited to be admitted and also thereafter, required to be allowed. 7.1 I have considered the submissions made at the bar. 7.1 I have considered the submissions made at the bar. I have also considered the impugned judgments passed by both the Court below. 7.2 The scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is fruitful to refer, which is as under: “Section 100. 100. Second appeal.--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. STATE AMENDMENT Kerala. In sub-section (1) of section 100 of the Principal Act, after clause (c), the following clause shall be added, namely: (d) the finding of the lower appellate court on any question of fact material to the right decision of the case on the merits being in conflict with the finding of the Court of first instance on such question.” 7.3 The trial court has dealt with all the relevant aspects involved in the matter. The trial court has considered the oral evidence of plaintiff - Amrutlal Mevaram Gupta at Exh.80, additional affirmative filed by plaintiff - Amrutlal Mevaram Gupta at Exh.84, the documentary evidence produced at Exh.102, the sale deed of Ramjimandar at Exh.103, the certified copy of Sanad at Exh.104, the permission Exh.105 and the resolution passed by Iqubalgarh Gram Panchayat Exh.106. Thereafter, the Court below has farmed issues, as under: Sr.No. Exh. Detail Dated 1. Thereafter, the Court below has farmed issues, as under: Sr.No. Exh. Detail Dated 1. 102 A true copy of the registered sale document of the plot executed by the plaintiff 01.01.1985 2. 103 A true copy of sale deed of Ramji Mandir House 01.11.1983 3. 104 Copy of Sanad 20.04.1972 4. 105 Permission Chit 12.21.1998 5. 106 Copy of Resolution (Iqbalgarh Gram Panchayat) 24.12.1989 4. A closing pursis has been submitted by the plaintiff below Exh.86, however, the written submissions has been submitted by the plaintiff at Exh.108. 5. The defendants have not produced evidence and therefore, their right to lead evidence has been closed. 6. For the decision of this suit, my predecessor i.e. 8th Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur had framed vide Exh.78 the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is owner of suit property ? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in actual Possession of the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is trying to dispossess him from the property ? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for mis joinder of parties ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for ? 6- What order and decree ? Findings 1. In Affirmative 2. In Affirmative 3. In Negative 4. In Negative 5. In Negative 6. As per order 7.4 The trial court has dealt with the issues by giving cogent and convincing reasons and discussed the evidence in detail. The court has specifically found that the plaintiff has taken disadvantage of the situation and had put up the construction on the land of defendant to the extent of 4 sq.ft. and that fact is coming on record. In the Panchnama as well as Sketch prepared by the Court Commissioner, the court has also found that as per the available record, there is no supporting document, which indicates that there is existing 3 metre road as mentioned at Exh.102 document and there is no other supporting document. Considering the findings given from the perusal of the record and also appreciating the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the court has come to the conclusion that as per the sale deed, the plaintiff has purchased admeasuring 420 sq.ft. land whereby as per the other documents available on record, it transpires that plaintiff is occupying 424 sq.ft. land. Considering the findings given from the perusal of the record and also appreciating the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the court has come to the conclusion that as per the sale deed, the plaintiff has purchased admeasuring 420 sq.ft. land whereby as per the other documents available on record, it transpires that plaintiff is occupying 424 sq.ft. land. Therefore, there is encroachment of 4 sq.ft. by the present plaintiff, and when the plaintiff is seeking equitable relief by praying for permanent injunction, the Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not coming with clean hand. The Court has also found that the conduct of the plaintiff is required to be considered while considering such averments made in the paint. Therefore, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that suit is required to be dismissed as the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. On the contrary, it transpires that the plaintiff has taken disadvantage of the situation and has himself committed some encroachment on the land of defendant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant has preferred the appeal, whereby the Court has framed the point of determination in para 7 and recorded the finding in paragraph 8 and thereafter, reasons are assigned in paragraph 9 of its judgment. 7.5 I have gone through the documentary evidence available on the record. I have also gone through the findings given by the learned lower appellate court. The learned lower appellate court has considered the chief examination of the plaintiff at Exh.80 and 84 and also considered the document of the registered sale as well as permission given by the Gram Panchayat for construction over the disputed suit property at Exh.105, 106, which apparently appear that the said permission for the construction over the disputed suit property is given by Iqbalgadh Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the trial court has rightly observed that the plaintiff has constructed over the suit property by permission given by the Iqbalgadh Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the trail court has observed that whether the Iqbalgadh Gram Panchayat possesses such authority for giving the permission for construction. 7.6 The plaintiff has disputed the Panchnama, which is prepared by the Court Commissioner. 7.6 The plaintiff has disputed the Panchnama, which is prepared by the Court Commissioner. The fact remains that no contrary material produced on record to point out that there is no encroachment made by the plaintiff to the extent of 4 sq.ft. area and the plaintiff has not put up construction more than the area that he possessed. 7.7 All these findings are concurrent findings of fact. The Court has appreciated the material available on the record. It cannot be said that the Court has not appreciated the documents in proper perspective. The oral evidence is also assessed by the courts below in appropriate manner. 7.8 It is also required to refer the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs and Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 875, more specifically, paragraph 7, 14 & 15 are relevant, as under: “7. The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC passing muster are well established. The section itself dictates that such an appeal shall only be maintainable when the case involves a substantial question of law or that the appellate decree has been passed ex parte. the latter, obviously is not the case. This court has, in a multitude of decisions, expounded on what may be termed as a substantial question of law to satisfy the requirements of section 100. In Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala6( 2 Judge Bench), it was observed: “27. In HeroVinoth v. Seshammal [HeroVinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 ], this Court referred to and relied upon Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ] and other judgments and summarised the tests to find out whether a given set of questions of law were mere questions of law or substantial questions of law. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in Hero Vinoth [Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 ] are set out hereinbelow : (SCC p. 554, para 21) “21. The phrase “substantial question of law”, as occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying “question of law”, means— of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. The phrase “substantial question of law”, as occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying “question of law”, means— of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with—technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 31 : (192728) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172 the phrase “substantial question of law” as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case. In Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju, 1951 SCC OnLine Mad 100 : AIR 1951 Mad 969 : (Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ], AIR p. 1318, para 5) ‘ 5. … when a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. … when a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular facts of the case it would not be a substantial question of law.’ 28. To be “substantial”, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either way.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. As already noted above, another ground of objection taken by the Appellant is the fact of the impugned judgment entering into a reappreciation of evidence. While it is true that ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court. However, it is also equally well recognised that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone. In Nazir Mohamed (supra) this Court has recognised three conditions in which a court in such jurisdiction, may disturb findings of fact. They are: “ (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 15. A Bench of three learned Judges, recently in Balasubramanian and Anr. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 15. A Bench of three learned Judges, recently in Balasubramanian and Anr. v. M. Arockiasamy (Dead) Through LRs., (2021) 12 SCC 529 , had referred to, with approval judgment rendered in Ramathal v. Maruthathal & Ors, (2018) 18 SCC 303 (two Judge Bench) wherein it was observed that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule. Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such findings.” 7.9 In view of the above discussions in the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law borne out in the present Second Appeals. Moreover, considering the suggested substantial questions of law mentioned in the appeal memo, it can be considered as only questions of fact. Otherwise also, no ground is made out by the appellant to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below. Therefore, both the present Second Appeals are required to be dismissed. 8. Resultantly, both the present Second Appeals are dismissed.