the land in dispute; then it cannot be treated to be 'Sahan'. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court has wrongly considered the first and second advocate commissioner reports and has recorded a perverse finding with respect to the statement of the appellant-plaintiff are concerned, since this Court has come to conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff cannot claim any right over the land in dispute treating it to be 'Sahan' of his house as there exists a passage between the house of appellant-plaintiff and the land in dispute, as such, there is no need to go through the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. Since the appellant had no right to claim possession over the land in dispute, the suit filed for permanent injunction by him was in any case liable to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the first appellate Court. In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law, as framed by the appellant-plaintiff, involved in the instant appeal. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :-30.3.2017 SLearned counsel for the appellant also submits that the first appellate Court has failed to appreciate the above relevant facts and has decided the first appeal without framing points of determination. The first appellate court has hurriedly decided the appeal and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant and gone through the record. As per the admitted facts, which are not in dispute, the third advocate commissioner report i.e., 54Ga-2 was approved by the Trial Court. In the said commissioner report, the site map of the land in dispute.