Short Note : 1. By this second appeal, the appellant seeks interference with the judgment and decree of the Courts below dismissing his suit. The plaintiff claimed the suit land on the allegation that for the last more than 40 years before the date of suit, he had been in actual physical possession of the suit land as owner thereof and, as such, he had perfected his title. The Courts below have concurrently found it as a fact that the plaintiff could not establish his possession. The oral evidence led by him was not believed so far as the documentary evidence is concerned, there was no entry in the revenue papers regarding the possession of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the possession of the defendant and his predecessors have been continuously recorded. There was only one isolated entry in the Khasra of the year 1973-74, i.e., the year of the suit. There was no basis shown as to how all of a sudden the name of the plaintiff could be shown in the Khasra of that year without any basis for the same either in the entries prior to the said year or afterwards. Since the case of the plaintiff was based on the fact of long continuous hostile possession as owner and the said fact could not be established the suit was dismissed by the Courts below. No case is made out for entertaining the second appeal. The finding of fact concurrently arrived by both the Courts below could not be shown to be arbitrary or perverse. The oral testimony of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff was not found worthy of credence. The documentary evidence in the shape of revenue records was conspicuously against the case of the plaintiff. The suit has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. Appeal dismissed.