JUDGMENT : 1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar in appeal No. 95/2006 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar in civil suit No. 43/1995 whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance and permanent injunction. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that from the time of partition many people started small business near Lal Gate, Alwar and Ganesh Gali in Alwar City. Father of the plaintiff also started small business in the year 1947 by installing Thadi on a land measuring 12 X 28 ft area. The plaintiff associated with his father at the age of 10 to 12 years. After attaining the age of majority, he started separate business on the said land. Plaintiff had possession over the disputed portion for last 40 years on the basis of his adverse possession. He got title over the land in question. The UIT officials proposed to construct market in that area. At that time, small businessmen met Secretary UIT, Alwar. They orally agreed to allot 7 X 10 ft commercial plot @ 250/- per square yards and 6 X 4 ft shop costing Rs. 5,000/- per shop. Plaintiff requested the Secretary for giving a shop measuring 6 X 4 ft but instead, they issued an advertisement for auction of the plot No. 94B in which land of the plaintiff (6 X 4) was also included. 3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that UIT Officials never gave oral assurance to the plaintiff and other persons for giving them shop and plot. Plaintiff had no possession over the land in question. The land measuring 6 X 4 ft is for the purpose of gallery to enter the commercial complex. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. Plaintiff had no possession over the land in question. The land measuring 6 X 4 ft is for the purpose of gallery to enter the commercial complex. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 01- vk;k oknh dks ykyxsV ds rjQ mRrj if'pe dh xyh esa [kqyrs gq, Hkw[k.M iekbZ'k 12 x 28 ij FkMh o <?yh 40 o"kZ ls yxkdj O;kikj djrs jgus ls dCtk eq[kkyrkuk ds vk/kkj ij gd feyfd;r ,oa fodYi esa iksLV xzkaV ds vk/kkj ij gdwd vknkyr izkIr gks x;s gS\ 02- vk;k lfpo uxj lq/kkj U;kl us oknh ls ekSf[kd vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij fd 7** x 10 QqV O;olkf;d Hkw[k.M 250@& :i;s izfr xt esa rFkk 6 x 4 QqV nqdku cukdj 5000 :i;s vkoafVr dj nh tkosxh oknh ls 6 x 4** QqV dh teuh NksM+dj 'ks"k tehu uxj lq/kkj U;kl] vyoj us ys yh\ 03- vk;k oknh 6** x 4** Hkw[k.M ftldh lhek;s nkos ds iSjk ua 5 eas vafdr gS ds lca/k esa izfroknh ls rDehy o eqvgnk dk vf/kdkjh gS 04- vk;k mijksDr Hkw[k.M 6 x 4 QqV o blds lkFk vU; Hkwfe feykdj uxj lq/kkj U;kl us ,d O;kolkf;d IykWV ua-&94 ch cukuk gS] ftls izfroknhx.k voS/k :i ls fuyke dj nsuk pkgrk gSA 05- vk;k nkok vof/k e/; gS\ 06- vk;k oknh us ekfy;r o nkok de dk;e dh gS U;k; 'kqYd de yxk gS\ 07- vk;k izfroknhx.k }kjk fiNys ,d lky ls fuekZ.k dk;Z oknxzLrLFky ij djok;k tk jgk gS blds laca/k esa oknh us dHkh vk{ksi ugha fd;k] bldk nkos ij D;k vlj gS\ 08- vuqrks"k\^^ 5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Ratan Lal and PW-2-Banne Singh and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1-Harish and DW-2-Vijay Prasad and exhibited certain documents. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 8. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. He also submits that the trial Court had committed an error in deciding the issues against the plaintiff. By way of evidence, plaintiff proved his peaceful possession over the disputed land for more than 40 years. He further submits that on assurance of UIT Officials plaintiff gave the possession of the disputed land measuring 12 X 28 ft and remained in the possession of land measuring 6 X 4 ft. On account of oral assurance, UIT officials had to allot shop to the plaintiff but despite the surrender of the land by the plaintiff, they had not complied with the oral agreement. So, the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Appellate Court as well as judgment and decree dated 14.07.2006 passed by the trial Court be set aside and UIT Officials be directed to allot the land measuring 6 X 4 ft to the plaintiff for doing business. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the disputed land and during the course of evidence, plaintiff failed to prove oral agreement. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff is devoid of merit. No substantial question of law is made out for adjudication. So, the appeal be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 11. It is an admitted position that plaintiff failed to adduce any cogent evidence that he was having possession over the disputed land for more than 40 years. No substantial question of law is made out for adjudication. So, the appeal be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 11. It is an admitted position that plaintiff failed to adduce any cogent evidence that he was having possession over the disputed land for more than 40 years. As per contention of the plaintiff, UIT Officials gave assurance to allot him 6 X 4 ft by taking land of 12 X 28 ft but the plaintiff failed to prove the oral agreement. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.