Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the records.This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2008 (Ram Haraksh vs. Smt. Hansa and others) by the learned District Judge, Raebareli as well as the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008 passed in Regular Suit No. 84 of 1984 [Ram Harakh vs. Lalla (substituted by respondents) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli whereby the suit for permanent injunction preferred by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal preferred thereafter has also been dismissed. As per given facts, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant-plaintiff before the learned Trial Court which was registered as Regular Suit No. 84 of 1984, claiming possession over the land in dispute on the basis of land being appurtenant land (Sahan) of the appellant-plaintiff and seeking injunction to restrain the respondents-defendants to interfere in the peaceful possession over the land in question. The learned Trial Court during pendency of the suit had ordered for appointing three Advocate Commissioners who had submitted their commission reports which were registered as 129Ga-2 dated 07.04.1984, 26Ga-2 dated 13.01.1986 and 54Ga-2 dated 24.09.1995. The earlier two commission reports were rejected by the Trial Court and the last commissioner report i.e., 54Ga-2 was approved, copy of the commissioner report 54Ga-2 is on record as Annexure no. 3. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record has rejected the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff, feeling aggrieved against the said order, has filed the civil appeal before the District Judge which too has been dismissed by the impugned order. The appellant thereafter has preferred the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has recorded perverse finding while deciding.