IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.98 of 2010 1. Bandelal Pandit. 2. Bhukhan Pandit. Both sons of late Manu Pandit. 3. Raj Narain Pandit. 4. Chothi Pandit @ Shankar Pandit. Both sons of Bandelal Pandit. 5. Santosh Pandit @ Shankar Kumar son of Raj Narain Pandit S.Kr through guardian Raj Narain Pandit. 6. Sudhir Pandit son of Raj Narain Pandit. (died during the pendency of the Title Appeal on 22.10.2005). 7. Dinesh Pandit. 8. Surendra Pandit. 9. Birendra Pandit. All sons of Bhukhan Pandit. 10. Binod Pandit @ Vineet Kumar. Son of Dinesh Pandit. All resident of Village-Chandour Tola Sakhua, P.S.-Saur Bazar, District-Saharsa …Defendants…Respondents…Appellants. Versus 1. Mohd. Khalil Siddique. 2. Md. Jalil. Both sons of late Maksood Mian. 3. Rukeda Khatoon. 4. Shamima Khatoon. Both daughters of late Maksood Mian. All resident of Village-Saur Bazar, P.S.-Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa. …Plaintiffs…Appellants…Respondents. ----------- 9. 23.11.2011 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that the appellate Court below has not considered the relevant evidence on record and has wrongly recorded the findings against the defendant appellant. It has been urged by the learned counsel that there has been admissions in Exhibit-C series which are the sale deeds by brothers and uncle of the vendors of the plaintiffs 2 wherein these defendant appellants have been accepted and recognized to be in possession of adjacent lands which is the suit land. The learned counsel has also contended that there is no sufficient evidence on record to establish the settlement of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs as pleaded by them inasmuch as the Exhibit-2 which has been relied upon as Hukumnama is only a sada document not bearing any date or description of the suit land. The learned counsel has also tried to persuade this Court to take the view that the defendants are in adverse possession over the suit land and as such they have also perfected their title over the same. On the basis of these contentions, the learned counsel has submitted that substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal. The perusal of the impugned of the appellate Court and consideration of the submissions by the learned counsel show that the dispute between the parties is mainly with regard to two plots i.e. Plot Nos. 8390 and 8403 and both parties have claimed their title over the same on the basis of settlement from the ex-landlord. However, the appellate Court below, after considering the evidence on record including the Cess valuation return and Jamabandi return which have been exhibited as Exhibits 4 and 5, has come to the finding that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his case of settlement by the ex-landlord. The defendants have also been claiming to be in adverse possession over the suit land and thereby to have acquired title over the same but from the averments made in the written statement in this 3 regard, which have been read out by the learned counsel for the appellant it does not appear that all the necessary ingredients of adverse possession have been pleaded. Moreover, the appellate Court has also considered the evidence of the parties with regard to possession and has come to the finding that the plaintiffs/respondents have been dispossessed from the suit land in the year 1989 by the defendants. It is well settled that the reappraisal of evidence in the second appellate jurisdiction is not permissible unless findings are shown to be perverse. The appellate Court below has recorded the findings of fact on the basis of its appreciation of evidence on record and no perversity in the findings could be established. Thus no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Kamlesh (V. Nath, J.)