ORDER :

1. Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff the concurrent findings of the learned courts below arising out of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. Factual matrix of the case is as under:

2.1. That the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for declaration and permanent injunction claiming himself to be the president of Muslim Dhobi Jamat. The defendant being government authorities, comprising of State of Gujarat, Secretary, Collect and Bhuj Nagar Palika. As per the case of the plaintiff, he is the owner and in possession of the suit property bearing Revenue Survey No.139 of 2002. As per the case of the plaintiff, the suit property was allotted to Muslim Dhobi Jamat in Savant 1924 by the King of Bhuj and washing clothes is done in the suit property. It is an admitted fact that the revenue entry reveals the ownership of the suit property Government. The plaintiff filed various applications claiming his ownership of the suit property before different revenue forums and all the applications were rejected on merits and thereafter, the plaintiff filed the Suit bearing No.1231 of 1997 against the defendant praying for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

2.2. Written Statement was filed by the defendants authorities denying the averments made in the plaint and placing on record revenue record stating the name of Government, Nagarpalika to be the owner of the property. The defendants have also challenged the status of the plaintiff as the President of Muslim Dhobi Jamat. The suit property is in the name of Bhuj Nagar Palika and the orders passed by the authorities i.e. revenue authorities are in accordance with law, which was not challenged and so it was prayed to dismiss the suit.

2.3. The learned trial judge framed the Issues and invited parties to prove the pleadings. After hearing the arguments of the parties and considering the documentary evidence, the learned trial judge rejected the suit, which was challenged by way of Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2006 in the first appellate court.

2.4. It is pertinent to note that the Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2006 came to be disposed of on 13/5/2022. The plaintiff challenged the said order of the appellate court by way of filing Second Appeal No.305 of 2022 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 21/9/2022 remanded the matter to the first appellate court to hear the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as “the CPC” for short). Thereafter, the first appellate court on remand, after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal, which is challenged before this Court by way of this Second Appeal.

3. Heard Mr.M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.B.Y. Mankad, learned advocate for the respondent No.6 – Bhuj Municipality and learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 – State.

4. I have examined the findings of both the courts on the issue raised in the suit. Upon examination of the judgement and order of both the courts below, no infirmity, illegality, perversity or impropriety is pointed out in the concurrent findings of the facts rendered by the courts below by Mr.Kharadi, learned advocate. Not only that, the learned advocate for the appellant is unable to show to this court any finding recorded by the learned courts is without any evidence or there is any illegality in the findings.

5. Here, in this case, the plaintiff has filed the suit as President of one association named Muslim Dhobi Jamat, but the entire record of the case, does not have any document to show that the plaintiff was having any right to file the suit even under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC. As such, the findings of the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court regarding status of the plaintiff as President of the Muslim Dhobi Jamat cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in view of the docume