1. - The appellant, Om Prakash, has challenged the legal validity of the judgment dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pokaran, whereby he has dismissed the suit for permanent and perpetual injunction filed by the appellant. Appellant has also challenged the validity of judgment dated 30.4.2011 passed by the District Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment dated 31.8.2009, and has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that appellant had filed a suit for permanent and perpetual injunction against Taja Ram, and Smt. Bhanwari Devi, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, wherein he had claimed that there is a plot of land, which originally belonged to his ancestors and he is in possession of the said land. The said land measuring 90X100 feet is situated on a road from village Bhaniyana to Satrawa and is in the northern side of the Shergarh Road. According to the appellant, seven year ago he had constructed a school on the said land. According to him just adjacent to his plot, the defendants, Taja Ram and Smt. Bhanwari Devi, have illegally occupied the land and have started keeping the bones of dead animals on the land illegally occupied by them. Due to the storage of bones of dead animals, a terrible stink arises. Therefore, he had objected to the storage of the bones. However, the defendants have refused to concede to his request. The defendant had filed the written statement, wherein they have clearly claimed that plaintiff has illegally occupied the land, which belong to them. He had also assaulted Smt. Bhanwari Devi, respondent No.2. They had filed a criminal case against him with the police for offences under Sections 339, 354, 458 IPC read with Section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST Act. Therefore, according to them, it is the plaintiff who was the trespasser.

3. The learned Civil Judge had framed six issues. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, he had dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 31.8.2009. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the said judgment, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide judgment dated 30.4.2011, the learned Judge also dismissed the appeal. Hence, the second appeal before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned judgments.

6. It is pertinent to mention that entire case is based on the back bone of facts. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises from the concurrent finding of both the courts below. Hence, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. Even otherwise, coming to the merits of the case, a bare perusal of the judgment dated 31.8.2009 clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has critically analyzed the evidence. According to the learned Magistrate, the appellant has not submitted any document to show the fact that the land belonged to his ancestors. Secondly, the appellant could not prove the fact that he was running a school in the said plot for the last seven years. Hence, he could not establish the title to the land in dispute. Moreover, the testimonies of his witnesses were replete with contradictions as none of them revealed to the court, whether the appellant was owner of the land, or not. Furthermore, none of them could reveal the exact size of the land in dispute.

8. The learned Civil Judge has also noticed the fact that, on the other hand, the defendant had proven the fact that it is appellant, who had trespassed over his land and had assaulted his wife. According to the certificate issued by the Sarpanch (Ex.A/2A), the land was owned by the defendant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, on the basis of evidence produced by the defendant, had validly and legally come to the conclusion that the appell