The limited power of the High Court to interfere in second appeals where concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant second appeal has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "defendants") against the order dated 06.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawaimadhopur, whereby the appeal filed on behalf the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") against the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Khandar was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 08.04.1999 for permanent injunction and declaration against the defendants before the learned Trial Court stating therein that the plaintiff is having possession over a piece of land in dispute measuring 16fts x 26fts, which was purchased by him from the defendant No.5- Radheshyam on 07.07.1993 by registered sale deed, after paying consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. Since, then he is having the peaceful possession over the plot in dispute of which, he is the sole owner. The plaintiff has also obtained the "Patta" from the Gram Panchayat Khandar on 23.03.1998 after paying consideration of Rs. 1,007/- and the Gram Panchayat Khandar has granted permission for construction over the plot in dispute and when he started the construction over the plot in dispute on 25.03.1999, then the defendants obstructed, therefore a suit was filed by the plaintiff and prayed that the defendants be restrained not to obstruct the construction over the plot in dispute.

3. The defendants filed reply before the learned Trial Court stating therein that the defendant No.5-Radheshayam has never sold the plot in dispute to the plaintiff and defendants are having possession over the plot in dispute.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

5. In support of his contention, plaintiff-Prabhu Lal submitted his own evidence as PW-1 and also adduced the evidence of PW-2 Ram Narayan. In documentary evidence, he submitted Ex.P-1 to P-3 and on behalf of defendants evidence of DW-1 Ram Karan, DW-2 Ram Phal, DW-3 Gopal & DW-4 Radheshyam was recorded.

6. After hearing of the parties, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001, the defendants filed a regular first appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawaimadhopur,, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 06.03.2010. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

7. Counsel for the defendants submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is against the facts and law and the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on issues No.1 & 2 are perverse. Counsel further submits that the learned Courts below failed to consider the evidence submitted on behalf of the defendants and prayed for quashing of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below.

8. Heard learned counsel for the defendants.

9. The learned Trial Court has recorded the finding of fact on issues No.1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff and while deciding the issues No.1 & 2, the learned Trial Court has considered the sale deed Ex.3, which was duly registered on 07.07.1993 and Ex.2"Patta", which was issued on 30.03.1998 by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff for construction of shop. The learned Trial Court further held that the plaintiff has purchased the plot in dispute from the defendant No.5-Radheshyam after paying consideration of Rs. 12,000/- by a registered sale deed and possession of the plot in dispute was also handed over to the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court further considered the evidence of the PW-5-Radheshaym, who has admitted that he sold the plot in dispute to the plaintiff, therefore, in my considered view, the learned Trial C