Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on question of admission of second appeal and perused the records.

2. Original Suit No. 1157/2006, Nakhadu Prajapati v. Vijay Shanker and others, was filed with averment that owner of disputed land in form of pit was Harihar Singh, who was predecessor in interest of defendant. After his death, defendants became his legal heirs. Plaintiff had purchased disputed 25' x 55' land in form of pit from Harihar Singh on consideration of Rs. 2,400/-. This purchase was made about 30 years back by oral transaction. Plaintiff is residing in this disputed land, but defendants have given application before police for evicting the plaintiff. Therefore cause of action arose and plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction.

3. In this O.S. No. 1157/2006, defendants had filed written statement denying the plaint averment and pleaded that they had admitted plaintiff as licensee over disputed land, but plaintiff had filed suit on the basis of incorrect facts, which should be dismissed.

4. Another Original Suit No. 679/2007 was filed by Vijay Shanker and others (who were defendants of O.S. No. 1157/2006) for eviction of licensee Nakhadu and others (who were plaintiff of O.S. No. 1157/2006) after cancellation of license.

5. Both the Original Suits No. 1157/2006 and 679/2007 related to same, and dispute was between the same parties on same issues, therefore, they were consolidated. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division (/J.S.C.C.), Varanasi had passed judgment dated 7.10.2013, by which O.S. No. 1157/2006 was dismissed with cost. By this judgment, O.S. No. 679/2007, Vijay Shanker and others v. Nakhadu Prajapati, was decreed for eviction of defendant Nakhadu from disputed property and for recovery of possession to plaintiff Vijay Shanker and others.

6. Against this judgment of trial Court, two appeals were filed by successors in interest of Nakhadu (plaintiff of O.S. No. 1157/2006 and defendant in O.S. No. 679/2007). Civil Appeal No. 215/2013 was preferred against the judgment of dismissal of O.S. No. 1157/2006, whereas Civil Appeal No. 214/2013 was preferred against the decree passed in O.S. No. 679/2007. These two appeals were again consolidated by first appellate Court. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi had passed common judgment dated 8.12.2015 for both the appeals, by which both the appeals were dismissed.

7. Against the judgment dated 8.12.2015 of first appellate Court, two second appeals had been preferred. Second Appeal No. 221/2016 is preferred against dismissal of O.S. No. 1157/2006 and Civil Appeal No. 215/2013. Second Appeal No. 222/2016 was preferred against decreeing of O.S. No. 697/2007 and dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 214/2013.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although no registered sale-deed was executed in their favour, but they are in possession of disputed property for about 30 years and have perfected their title by adverse possession, but this fact was not considered by lower Courts, so judgment of lower Courts are erroneous, and this appeal should be admitted for being allowed.

9. This contention was refuted by counsel for the respondent, who submitted that appellants had failed to prove their adverse possession in this matter and there has been concurrent finding of two lower Courts on the basis of evidences that appellants were inducted over disputed property as licensee, whose license has been cancelled and his status is that of trespasser, who cannot get injunction or any relief against the true owner. Therefore, there is no error in judgment of lower Courts and this appeal should not be admitted and should be dismissed in limne.

10. A perusal of record reveals that there has been concurrent finding of fact of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court, which is based on proper appreciation