JUDGMENT : Madan Gopal Vyas, J. The present civil second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the defendents (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the learned First Appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.13/2011 whereby the learned First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2011 & amended decree dated 29.06.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulabpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Civil Original Suit No.45/2005 whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit preferred by the original plaintiff Lalchand under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking decree of declaration, injunction and possession against the defendents. 2. The facts in brief are that the original plaintiff Lalchand preferred the aforesaid suit stating therein that there is a plot ad-measuring 45x50 sq. ft. situated in Gulabpura, Khatik Mohalla (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") which was purchased by him from one Abdul Salam S/o Gheesa Ji on 19.04.84 for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- and the said seller Abdul Salam also gave the possession of the suit property to the original plaintiff. It was claimed that after purchasing and getting the possession of the suit property, the plaintiff got a boundary wall constructed on the suit property and its gate was constructed at western Side. Further, it is submitted that the defendant-appellant No.1 is an employee in the Rajasthan Police Department and was pressurizing him to sell the suit property to him or else he would take possession from him forcefully. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 had no legal right over the suit property. In the suit, it was further claimed that on 17.06.2005, the defendants while removing the locks put by the plaintiff, put their own locks on the suit property and forcefully took possession of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred the suit seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. The defendant filed written statement to the suit and has also filed a counter claim. It was claimed that the plaintiff has not constructed the boundary wall over the suit property. The defendant No.3 Pokhar @ Parasram after putting sand got a wall of 6 ft. constructed over the boundary of the suit property. 3. The defendant filed written statement to the suit and has also filed a counter claim. It was claimed that the plaintiff has not constructed the boundary wall over the suit property. The defendant No.3 Pokhar @ Parasram after putting sand got a wall of 6 ft. constructed over the boundary of the suit property. It was further stated that the plaintiff was never ever in possession of the suit property whereas it was the defendant No.3 who was using and occupying the suit property. It is submitted that the defendants are using and occupying the suit property since last 40 years peacefully and since the plaintiff is having no possession over the same, the suit is not maintainable. Further, it was submitted that the actual measurement of the suit property is 40x50 sq. feet and since the defendant No.3 is in adverse possession of the suit property since last 40 years, therefore, he has become the owner of the same. Therefore, it was claimed that by way of passing decree of permanent injunction and declaration, it may be ordered that the defendants are in ownership and possession of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. Further, it was submitted that the plaintiff has not produced any patta of the suit property and the alleged seller Abdul Salam and his brother Ismail by using forged and fabricated documents have sold the suit property to the plaintiff. Thus, it was prayed that the suit preferred by the plaintiff may be rejected and the counter claim as filed by the defendants may be allowed and it may by declared that it is the defendant who is the owner of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession and the plaintiff be restrained from causing obstruction over the use and occupation of the suit property. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed following 7 issues:- 5. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined 4 witnesses and exhibited four documents whereas the defendants examined 5 witnesses and exhibited three documents. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2011 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined 4 witnesses and exhibited four documents whereas the defendants examined 5 witnesses and exhibited three documents. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2011 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court also rejected the counter claim filed by the defendant and declared that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he has all the rights to use and occupy the same. By way of permanent injunction, the defendants were also restrained from interfering with or making any construction or creating any hindrance in the use and occupation of the suit property as mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint by the plaintiff. It was further ordered by the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession of the suit property by dispossessing the defendants after a period of two months. 7. Challenging the said judgment and decree dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023, hence the present second appeal. 8. Existence of substantial question of law is a sine-qua-non for maintainability of second appeal. At the stage of admission of the present appeal, the question that needs to be determined is that whether a substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal or not. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have not only erred in law but also they passed erroneous judgments and decrees without appreciation of evidence and material available on record. 10. It is submitted that both the learned Courts have illegally decided issue No.1 against the appellants without considering the submissions made on his behalf. The learned trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court failed to consider that whether the seller Abdul Salam had any right to transfer the suit property and whether he was ever in possession of the land in question specially when the objection regarding such right was raised by the appellant in the first appeal. Neither Abdul Salam was produced in evidence nor his brother Ismail who had signed the document in favour of Abdul Salam was brought in evidence. 11. Neither Abdul Salam was produced in evidence nor his brother Ismail who had signed the document in favour of Abdul Salam was brought in evidence. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that Ex.2(NOC) issued by the Executive Officer Gulabpura did not bear the seal of authorized person and also the same was not issued upon the letter head of Municipal Board, Gulabpura and no such other document was produced by the plaintiff to prove that either Municipal Board, Gulabpura or Gram Panchayat, Gulabpura had issued any such patta in favour of the Abdul Salam. Even such patta was not produced by the plaintiff or by seller Abdul Salam to establish the ownership right over the suit property whereas the defendants-appellants had clearly stated that they were in peaceful possession of the suit property since 40-42 years and have also incurred substantial amounts for constructing boundary wall. At present, they are using, occupying and having possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that learned trial Court has also not considered the patta of one Dhanna Lal produced by the defendant-appellant in which his plot has been shown on the southern side. Even the Commissioner's report establishes that the possession was with the defendants. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Court below has disregarded the evidence of DW-2 Ram Lal who clearly stated that he is aware of the property of Paras Ram @ Pokhar on which he had constructed a 6 ft. boundary wall over 30 years ago and he is in possession of the same till date. Such facts have also been affirmed by the evidence of other witnesses i.e. DW 3 Dhanna Lal, DW 4 Mewa Ram and DW 5 Gopal who have also stated that the defendant Pokhar is in possession of the suit property from last 30-40 years and is continuously utilising the same. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned Courts below have committed error while jointly determining and deciding the issues against the appellants without appreciating the material available on record. It is submitted that there is dispute with regard to the measurement of the suit property and the plaintiff has wrongly stated the measurement of the suit property and the defendant has produced material evidence that the suit property is ad-measuring 40x50 sq. ft. It is submitted that there is dispute with regard to the measurement of the suit property and the plaintiff has wrongly stated the measurement of the suit property and the defendant has produced material evidence that the suit property is ad-measuring 40x50 sq. ft. but the learned trial Court while decreeing the suit has not properly appreciated the evidence. It is submitted that the learned Courts have given findings on such issue by non application of mind and in a cursory manner. Therefore, it is submitted that the present appeal involves substantial question of law and the same is may be admitted. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur and Ors. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 . 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and submits that both the learned courts have rightly decreed the suit and have rightly rejected the counter claim filed by defendant. It is further submitted that on the basis of theory of adverse possession, the defendant cannot claim right over the right of the plaintiff who is the registered owner of the suit property. Therefore, it is submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal and the same deserves to be rejected. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments:- (1) Shanti Lal S/o Bherulal Vs. Shantilal S/o Footarmal, reported in 2021 2 RLW (Raj.) 1484. (2) Jit Ram Now Deceased Through Lrs. vs. Satnam Singh reported in [2019] 4 CurCC(SC) 532. (3) Government of Kerala & Anr. vs. Joseph and Ors. reported in 2023 0 INSC 693 . (4) Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi, reported in 1981 0 Supreme (SC) 72. (5) Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.R's. & Anr. Etc., reported in 2016 0 Supreme (SC) 776. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. The issue No.1 is whether the plot ad-measuring 40x50 sq ft. situated at Khatik Mohalla, Gulabpura, which is in power and possession of the plaintiff was purchased by him from Abdul Salam S/o Gheesa on 19.04.1984. Etc., reported in 2016 0 Supreme (SC) 776. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. The issue No.1 is whether the plot ad-measuring 40x50 sq ft. situated at Khatik Mohalla, Gulabpura, which is in power and possession of the plaintiff was purchased by him from Abdul Salam S/o Gheesa on 19.04.1984. The issue No.2 is whether the plaintiff got a boundary wall constructed over the plot which is in his possession and he has made a gate on the western side of the plot. Issue No.3 is whether the defendants by discarding garbage in the suit property make it dirty and whether the plaintiff constructed boundary wall and has installed the gate over the suit property to prevent the same. Issue No.5 is whether defendant No.3 Pokhar@ Parasram is having possession over the suit property since last 40 years and therefore he is entitled to seek decree and ownership on the basis of adverse possession. Issue No.6 is whether the measurement of the suit property as mentioned in para No.2 of the suit is 45x50 sq. ft. is wrong and the correct measurement is 40x50 sq. ft. 17. The aforesaid issues are related to each other and therefore, the learned trial Court has decided all the aforesaid issues jointly. While deciding the aforesaid issues, after assessing the evidence, oral and documentary produced by the respective parties, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property as the sale deed (Ex.P1) was executed in his favour and the same is registered. By way of Ex.P2, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Gulabpura issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the original plaintiff Lal Chand. The learned trial court on the basis of the aforesaid two documents held that it is plaintiff who is in power and possession of the suit property and the learned First Appellate Court affirmed the same. 18. Insofar as the claim of the defendants that they are in adverse possession from last 30-40 years over the suit property is concerned, the learned trial Court observed that the status of the suit property is submitted in the Mauka Commissioner's report and the averments of the defendants are contradictory to the same. 18. Insofar as the claim of the defendants that they are in adverse possession from last 30-40 years over the suit property is concerned, the learned trial Court observed that the status of the suit property is submitted in the Mauka Commissioner's report and the averments of the defendants are contradictory to the same. Learned trial Court has specifically recorded a finding that in the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, it has been stated that it is the plaintiff who has been handed over the possession of the suit property. The documentary evidence has been produced by the plaintiff in his favour and there is no documentary evidence produced by the defendants to prove their adverse possession over the suit property since last 30-40 years. Therefore, the learned trial Court has discarded the plea of defendants with respect to adverse possession over the suit property and accordingly the aforesaid issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have been decided against the defendants and the findings of the learned Trial Court have been affirmed by the Learned First Appellate Court. Learned trial Court while deciding the issue No.4 has also specifically observed that the defendants have removed the locks of the plaintiffs and then installed their own locks, and therefore, the learned Trial Court held that plaintiff is entitled for seeking decree of dispossession against the defendants. The learned First Appellate Court also discussed each and every issue and after appreciating the evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that judgment passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from illegality and perversity and the learned First Appellate Court has rejected the appeal so preferred by the defendants. 19. It is a settled law that evidence on record cannot be re-appreciated in a second appeal as it can be done in a first appeal. Both the learned Courts have recorded concurrent findings which are based on sound appreciation of evidence. In Surendra Kumar Jaggi v. Ahmed Farooq and Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 01/2011), decided on 23.08.2012, has in para 14 held that: "14. Both the learned Courts have recorded concurrent findings which are based on sound appreciation of evidence. In Surendra Kumar Jaggi v. Ahmed Farooq and Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 01/2011), decided on 23.08.2012, has in para 14 held that: "14. It is well settled that evidence on record cannot be reappreciated in second appeal under Section 100 CPC like it could be done in first appeal under Section 96 CPC and such second appeal would lie only if substantial question of law, as defined in various case laws, arises in the matter. Nothing of this sort is found in the present case." 20. Further, there is no reason to say that the learned Courts, while arriving at their conclusions, have misconstrued the material evidence or have acted in disregard to the established principles of law. It is a trite law that normally, in second appeal, concurrent findings of fact is not to be disturbed unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigela Laxmi and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 380 , Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para 13 has held that: "13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (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. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." 21. There is nothing on record that suggests that both the courts have ignored material evidence or have acted on no evidence or that they have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or that they have wrongly cast the burden of proof. 22. Further, in Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.R's. reported in AIR 2001 SC 965 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: "12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. 22. Further, in Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.R's. reported in AIR 2001 SC 965 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: "12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 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 & Anr. Vs. T. Ram Ditta, AIR 1928 Privy Council 172, the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 of the C.P.C. (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 as between the parties...." 23. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 24. Consequently, the present appeal is rejected at the stage of admission. The judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 13/2011 and judgment dated 31.05.2011 and decree dated 31.05.2011 and amended decree dated 29.06.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulabpura in Civil Original Suit No. 45/2005 are affirmed. 25. No order as to costs.