This second appeal was admitted on 29.8.91 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the learned Courts below had committed error in law in extending the benefit of the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and section 60 (b) of the Easement Act to the defendant No. 1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.2.91 passed in Title Appeal No. 11 of 1989 by the learned Assistant District Judge, Tezpur affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff, Tezpur in Title Suit No. 99 of 1983. The appellant herein as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in the schedule to the plaint covering an area of 12 lechas (approx) after evicting the appellant and removing the katcha structures erected thereon. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit with costs. The learned appellate Court also affirmed the said judgment which is impugned in this second appeal. 3.1 have heard Mr. TC Khetri, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. PC Deka, the learned senior counsel for the respondents. 4. The appellant's case is that he is the sole owner of the suit land appertaining to Dag No. 484 of Periodic Patta No. 120 of Tezpur Town (Fourth Part) corresponding to new Dag No.452 of new Patta No. 184 located within Municipal Ward No. 13 of Tezpur Town. The defendant No. 1 was originally his tenant and during the continuance of tenancy he was allowed to raise a katcha structure with thatched roof over 10 lechas of the suit land. After construction of the katcha structure, the defendant No. 1 allowed other defendants to reside with him in the said house. Eventually the defendant No.l expressed his intention to purchase the suit land. This was refused by the plaintiff/appellant. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 encroached upon 2 lechas of land, and left the place leaving other defendants c to reside in the suit premises. The defendant No.l, on the basis of an agreement of sale, also filed Title Suit No.4 of 1977 for specific performance of the contract. The said suit was dismissed on 26.6.79. The defendants in possession were asked to vacate the suit land. On refusal, the appellant had to file the suit. 5. The defendant No.l, on the basis of an agreement of sale, also filed Title Suit No.4 of 1977 for specific performance of the contract. The said suit was dismissed on 26.6.79. The defendants in possession were asked to vacate the suit land. On refusal, the appellant had to file the suit. 5. In the written statement, the defendant No.l took the plea that an agreement was executed on 4.1.74 for sale of the disputed land for a sum of Rs. 3,000 out of which Rs. 2,200 was paid in advance. Accordingly, the plaintiff delivered possession of the suit land. It was only after that the defendant raised permanent construction. Despite requests, the appellant refused to execute the sale deed in his favour. Hence, he had filed Title Suit No.4 of 1977 which was dismissed for default. Hence, the defendant pleaded protection under section 60 (b) of the Easement Act and under section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. Upon consideration of pleadings, the learned Munsiff framed the following issues: 1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit land ? 3. Whether defendant No. 1 was permitted to raise a katcha structure i.e. thatched house by the plaintiff on 10 lechas of suit land on January, 1974 ? 4. Whether defendant encroached upon 2 lechas of land occupy 12 lechas of land of the plaintiff? 5. Whether the plaintiff lost right on the suit land by executing an agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.l ? 6. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred under section 53A of the Transfer & of Property Act? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for ? 8. To what other reliefs are the parties entitled ? 7. The learned Munsiff answered issue Nos 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and issue Nos 3 to 8 against the plaintiff. Both the Courts below came to the finding on appreciation of evidence that the plaintiff-petitioner had permitted defendant No.l to raise structure of permanent nature on the 10 lechas of land. Besides, they also concurrently held that there has been no encroachment as alleged and the plaintiff lost his right of recovery of possession because of the agreement of sale executed by him. Besides, they also concurrently held that there has been no encroachment as alleged and the plaintiff lost his right of recovery of possession because of the agreement of sale executed by him. Deliberating upon the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act they came to the finding that there was an agreement between the parties and in pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 2,200 as advance and delivered possession. This conclusion was drawn from the statement made in para 6 of the written statement filed by the appellant in Money Suit No.3 of 1987. The learned appellate Court after appreciation of evidence concluded that there was an irrevocable licence granted by the appellant in favour of the defendant No. 1 to go for permanent construction on the suit land. Besides, the learned appellate Court also concluded that the appellate is not entitled to recover the possession of the land as the defendant is protected under section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act. The conclusion arrived at by the Courts below on evaluation of facts is concurrent and I find no reason to disagree. The protection extended under the provisions of section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act and the provisions of section 60 (b) of the Easement Act appear to be in conformity with law. This answers the question formulated in this appeal. 8. Mr. PC Deka, the learned senior counsel submitted that the question formulated is not a substantial question of law necessary to be answered for adjudication of the dispute between the parties and hence, this appeal is not maintainable. The contention has enough force. I endorse the above submission for the reason that the question formulated is capable of being answered on evaluation of facts, there being no confusion with regard to the law. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The LCR be sent to the Court (s) concerned immediately.