P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) -DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant against confirming decisions in both the appeals. ( 2 ) ONE Kapala Baya had two sons, Kapala bharat and Kapala Raghunath, Kapala Bharat filed Title Suit No. 5/83 for declaration of title, correction of Record-of-Rights and for permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 0. 21 cents of land appurtairiing to Khasra No. 57, survey No. 736 and Kapala Raghunath filed title Suit No. 6/83 for similar relief in respect of Ac. 0. 15 Cents of land appurtaining to Khata no. 57 and Survey No. 729. Defendants 1 to 6 were common in both the suits. During the pendency of Title Suit No. 5/83. Kapala bharat expired and his two sons were substituted as plaintiff Nos. 1 (a) and 1 (b) whereas daughters were substituted as proforma defendants 8 to 11 in the said suit, defendants 5 and 6 in each of the suits are respectively the Collector, Ganjam and Tahsildar, Digapahandi. Defendants 1 and 2 are sons of late Mohan gouda, whereas defendants 3 and 4 are res-pectively the widowed daughter-in-law and grandson. ( 3 ) AS per the plaintiff's case in each of the suits, Kapala Baya had purchased the disputed properties by registered sale deed dated 4. 5. 1932 from the recorded owner. It is claimed that the defendants without any right tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and in the Record-of-Rights there is erroneous recording of note of possession of defendants 1 to 4. On the aforesaid allegations, both the brothers filed two separate suits. ( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 in his written statement claimed that the disputed land was his ancestral property and the Record-of-Rights correctly reflected his possession. Defendants 5 and 6 supported the case of defendant No. 1, but subsequently remained ex parte. ( 5 ) ON consideration of materials on record, the trial court found that though the prayer for correction of Record-of-Rights was barred by limitation, the suit for declaration and possession was within time. It further found that the description as given in Ext. 2, the registered sale deed of the year 1932, related to the disputed lands. It further found that valid title had been conveyed to the plaintiffs' father by the sale deed (Ext. 2) and defendant no. It further found that the description as given in Ext. 2, the registered sale deed of the year 1932, related to the disputed lands. It further found that valid title had been conveyed to the plaintiffs' father by the sale deed (Ext. 2) and defendant no. 1 had forcibly occupied the disputed lands only two years prior to the filing of the suit. Accordingly, while declaring the title of the plaintiff in each of the cases, the trial court directed that possession should be delivered to the plaintiff. ( 6 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 filed Title Appeal Nos. 19/90 and 21/90 against the decrees passed in T. S. 5/83 and T. S. 6/83 respectively. Both the appeals having been dismissed, Second appeal Nos,. 78/95 and 79/95 have been filed. Both the suits were heard analogously and disposed of by a common judgment. So also the appeals. The present judgment will cover both the cases. ( 7 ) IN the present second appeals, the main contention of the appellant revolved round the title of the vendor of the plaintiffs' father. It is claimed that in the absence of any evidence or categorical finding that Bhika Gouda from whom Kapala Baya had purchased in the year 1932 had title, plaintiffs' title in respect of the disputed lands cannot be declared. It is further submitted that the property which had been sold under Ext. 2 had been described as "panibatia Bila", whereas the disputed property has been recorded as "gouda Bila" in Ext. 3, the Record-of-Rights and as such it cannot be said that there is any co-relation between the property purchased under Ext. 2 and the disputed property. ( 8 ) THE trial court has referred to the evidence of defendant No. 1 himself and come to a conclusion that the property which had been described as "panibatia Bila" in the sale deed was the same property described as "goudabila" in the Record-of-Rights. Moreover, on a comparison of the boundaries given in the sale deed (Ext. 2) and the evidence on record, the trial court came to conclude that the property sold under Ext. 2 had been recorded as Survey No. 736 (wrongly mentioned as 776 in the R. O. R.) and Survey No. 729. The aforesaid finding of the trial court has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. Similarly, from the Record-of-Rights (Ext. 2) and the evidence on record, the trial court came to conclude that the property sold under Ext. 2 had been recorded as Survey No. 736 (wrongly mentioned as 776 in the R. O. R.) and Survey No. 729. The aforesaid finding of the trial court has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. Similarly, from the Record-of-Rights (Ext. 3) it is apparent that Bhika Gouda from whom the disputed properties had been purchased by the plaintiffs' father was one of the co-sharers in respect of the disputed properties as well as other properties recorded in the same Record-of-Rights. From the various rent receipts and documents on record, the trial court found that the plaintiffs' father Kapala Baya acquired title by virtue of the sale deed in the year 1932. Though the trial court did not give a categorical finding regarding the title of Bhika Gouda, it is apparent from the Record-of-Rights (Ext. 3) itself that, indeed, Bhika Gouda was one of the co-sharers. The transaction itself had taken place in the year 1932 and the evidence on record, as accepted by the trial court, indicated that Kapala Baya and thereafter his sons were in possession of the disputed properties. The findings regarding title of plaintiffs' father and possession are essentially findings of fact not available to be challenged in a Second Appeal. Though the lower appellate court has not discussed in details the various reasonings, this being a confirming judgment, general affirmance of the reasons given by the trial court is sufficient. The discussion by the trial court which has been generally accepted by the lower appellate court cannot be characterised as perverse or without basis so as to warrant interference in Second Appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, 1 do not find any merit in these Second Appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.