3 persons as plaintiffs i.e. Uttam Chandra Deka, Jogendra Deka and Lankeswar Deka filed a suit alleging that land measuring 4 bighas 1 katha 9 lechas was owned and possessed by late Mahidhar Goswami, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants 2 to 7. After the death of Mahidhar Goswami, defendants 2 to 7 . sold the suit land to the plaintiffs by registered deed in the year 1982 (i,e. 24th of March, 1982) and put the plaintiffs into possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs were possessing the suit land. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1, Hangsharam Deka claiming ryoti right under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, filed an application before the learned Sub Deputy Collector of Barkhetri Circle and on the strength of that application the Sub Deputy Collector of Barkhetri Circle, at the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, without giving any notice to the plaintiffs, passed an order to the effect that the suit land was the Khatian land of defendant No. 1 and further directed the plaintiffs to vacate the suit land. It is stated that the defendant No.l possessed the land under late Mahidhar Goswami. The plaintiffs in pursuance of the order of Sub Deputy Collector did not give up the possession of the land, but as this order cast cloud on the title and interest of the plaintiffs over the land, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for cancellation of the order passed by the learned Sub Deputy Collector. The vendor of the plaintiffs i.e. defendants 2 to 7 filed written statement admitting that the plaintiffs was a tenant under late Mahidhar Goswami and it was further admitted by them that the land in question was sold by them to the plaintiffs. It was further stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between late Mahidhar Goswami and defendant No.l. The defendant No.l filed written statement stating that he possessed the land in question as an occupancy tenant under late Mahidhar Goswami by obtaining Khatian No.145 and the civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree as prayed for by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Assam Tenancy Act, 1971. It was pleaded by defendant No.l that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land. It was pleaded by defendant No.l that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land. On the basis of this pleadings, different issues were framed and Issue No. 5 in the suit runs as follows : "5. Whether the defendant No.l is a tenant of the suit land and is entitled to possess the same as such or the Khatian issued in his favour under the provisions of Assam Tenancy Act is fraudulent ?" 2. The learned Munsiff in his judgment dated 25.5.88 in TS 40 of 1985 in deciding issue No.5 found as follows : "So, all these had to believe that defendant No.l was possessing the suit land under late Mahidhar Goswami as his tenant and due Khatian was obtained by defendant No.l as Khatian No. 145 in regard to the suit land. The Khatian No. 145 was issued to the defendant No.l in regard to the suit land in the year 1977." 3. Accordingly, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. There was an appeal i.e. TA 16 of 1988 before the learned District Judge at Nalbari and the learned District Judge, Nalbari found that the Khatian claimed to have been issued in favour of defendant No. 1 was a fraudulent one and he further found that there was absolutely no evidence regarding payment of rent by defendant No. 1 either to late Mahidhar Goswami or his heir. It was further found that Ext Gha series'- rent receipts does not relate to the suit land he further found that the entries made in Ext Ga i.e. the Khatians are not correct. He further found that the order given by the learned Sub Deputy Collector to the plaintiffs to vacate the possession of the suit land was absolutely without authority of law. The learned Sub Deputy Collector had no such power and/or jurisdiction under the Assam Tenancy Act, 1971. Having arrived at this findings, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal. Though as many as 4 substantial questions of law have been formulated i.e. ground Nos 1,2,3 and 4 in the memo of appeal, all these are not substantial question of law. The only substantial question of law which can be formulated in this appeal is whether the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court regarding legality and validity of the Khatian is correct. 4.1 have heard Mr. The only substantial question of law which can be formulated in this appeal is whether the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court regarding legality and validity of the Khatian is correct. 4.1 have heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for appellants and Mrs. T. Goswami, learned counsel for respondents. 5. Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for appellant relying on a decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 2229 (Damadilal & others vs. Parashram & others) submits that it is well established that if a finding of fact arrived at ignoring important and relevant evidence is bad in law and in such a situation the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction in deciding a second appeal can set aside a finding of the lower appellate Court and restore the finding that of the trial Court. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law, but the question is whether the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court is based on no evidence. As indicated above, the lower appellate Court considered the evidence and came to a finding. Another Court may take a different view in the matter, but that is not the ground to set aside the finding. Finding is liable to be set aside only when it is perverse and/or based on no evidence. Regarding perversity law is that it must be like calling black white and horse as elephant. But if there is some doubt in twilight zone deciding when dusk will start, the second appellate Court cannot touch the finding. In view of that matter, the contention of Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel that there is no evidence cannot be accepted inasmuch as the Court below appreciated Ext Gha series and Ga and arrived at the finding they do not relate to suit land and it further considered the oral evidence and came to finding that the defendant was not in possession, but it was the plaintiff who was in possession. This is basically a finding of fact and in exercise of the second appellate jurisdiction I cannot interfere with such a finding. 6. This is basically a finding of fact and in exercise of the second appellate jurisdiction I cannot interfere with such a finding. 6. Mrs T. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent relies on AIR 1963 SC 361 (Shri Raja Durja Singh of Solon vs. Tholu & others) wherein the Supreme Court pointed out that in an ejectment suit where the defendant denies his statute as tenant under the landlord, but the lower appellate Court found the defendant to be a tenant that itself is a finding of fact and that cannot be set aside in a second appeal. Basically the status of a person is declared on the basis of relative evidence and if that evidence is considered and correct test is applied in order to determine the status, the second appellate Court shall not set aside a finding. 7. That being the position, there is no merit and the same is dismissed. Stay order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated.