TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below, has filed the instant regular second appeal. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the allegations that the suit land comprised in Khata No.184, Khatauni No.404, Khasra Nos. 257 & 258, kitas-2, measuring 0-30-48 hectares, situate in Mohal and Mauza Haar Daroh, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is fully owned and possessed by him and despite the defendant having no right, title and interest in the suit land, he is interfering with the same.

3. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, locus standi, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, were taken. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, rather it was averred that it is the defendant, who in fact is in actual and physical possession of the suit land and the existing revenue entries are merely paper entries and are against the actual and factual position existing on the spot. It was averred that the defendant is in possession of the suit property since the time of his forefathers. However, half share contained in Khasra No.50 which was assigned new Khasra No.258 during settlement was under mortgage with Devi Singh and Piar Singh sons of Rijhu and the same had been redeemed by him in the year 1991-92 after payment of the mortgage money. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land in any capacity and the entries in the revenue records showing him as a tenant had been incorporated illegally and unauthorizedly in collusion with the settlement field staff during current settlement. It was further averred that there was no conferment of right, title and interest upon the plaintiff and, therefore, these entries are required to be declared null and void.

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

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

(2) Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD.

(3) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

(4) Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD.

(5) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD.

(6) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

(7) Whether the revenue entries qua the suit land are wrong, illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside as alleged? OPD.

(8) Relief.”

5. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and evaluating the same dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on 23.03.2009 and the appeal filed by the plaintiff against such judgment and decree also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court on 30.06.2017.

6. Undeterred, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal merely on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and are, therefore, liable to be set aside.

7. At the outset, it needs to be observed that concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the first appellate Court cannot be reopened in second appeal in absence of perversity. What would be substantial question of law has been lucidly dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi (dead) by Legal Representatives and another (2016) 10 SCC 315, wherein it was held as under:

“24. The scope of Section 100 of CPC while deciding the second appeal by the High Court has been the subject matter of several decisions of this Court and thus remains no more res integra. A reference to the two cases on this question would suffice.

25. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Santosh