1. - The appellant is aggrieved against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below which have been recorded in the judgments and decrees dated 5th Sept., 2006 and 21st Nov., 2006.

2. It appears from the facts of the case that two plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction in the year 2003 with the allegation that the land in question is reserved for public purposes and defendants, particularly, defendant no.2 School Development Committee has started auctioning the land for agricultural purposes. Therefore, plaintiffs sought injunction against the defendants, who are the Principal of the School,Chairman of the School Development Committee and the State Government. In the trial court the defendants produced documentary evidence to show that the land is in fact, is used for public purposes and for that purpose, only the land is put to auction for agricultural purposes also so that its income can be used for the school which is also public purpose. The defendants also produced documentary evidence that this is being done since 1985 and it is continuing since then till filing of suit and, thereafter also.

3. The courts below found that plaintiffs failed to prov