ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. This appeal is by the plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal. 2. The appellant filed suit for declaration of title, for a permanent injunction and alternatively, for recovery of possession in respect of the suit properties. The defendant claims to be a distinct and independent entity, but it is affiliated to Plaintiff 1 (Appellant 1 herein) for only religious purposes. The trial court found that the suit properties were acquired by two registered documents i.e. by a deed of gift and a sale deed. The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties were acquired on its behalf and the church and school buildings were constructed on the properties acquired by the funds of Plaintiff 1 and the contributions collected from the public. The plaintiff relied on Ext. 13, a trust deed, to support its case contending that under the said trust deed the defendant transferred the title and interest in the suit properties in favour of Plaintiff 1. 3. The trial court after trial, in the light of the evidence placed before it, held that under Ext. 13 there is no transfer of title in the suit properties in favour of Plaintiff 1. It also found that Girish Chandra Basumata, who claimed to be the Secretary of the defendant, was not competent to execute Ext. 13. In that view, the suit was dismissed. 4. The plaintiff filed first appeal. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court that Girish Chandra Basumata was not competent to execute Ext. 13. Under Ext. 13 Plaintiff 1 did not acquire any title over the suit properties. However, the first appellate court found that the defendant was not an independent entity, but it was affiliated to Plaintiff 1. Having regard to this finding, the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. The defendant approached the High Court by filing second appeal. 5. The High Court also agreed with the findings of fact that Ext. 13 was not executed by a competent person and no title under the said document was transferred in favour of Plaintiff 1. The High Court in the impugned order, has observed thus: "On the merit of the case, we have found that the said trust deed, Ext. 5. The High Court also agreed with the findings of fact that Ext. 13 was not executed by a competent person and no title under the said document was transferred in favour of Plaintiff 1. The High Court in the impugned order, has observed thus: "On the merit of the case, we have found that the said trust deed, Ext. 13 on which the plaintiffs rely was ineffectual to transfer title to Plaintiff 1. We discussed the evidence and have observed that there is nothing to indicate that Girish Chandra Basumata was the Secretary of EDKS. We have also noticed that there is nothing on the record to show that EDKS authorised the transfer of the properties in any general meeting. So, the plaintiffs cannot make any claim on the basis of Ext. 13. We have also observed that EDKS was a distinct and separate body and it acquired properties on its own. Acquisition by EDKS cannot be said to be acquisition by UCNI. The learned first appellate court proceeded on the basis of the conjecture that EDKS was not a separate entity and was a part of UCNI. There is no basis for the conjecture. The finding of the first appellate court in that respect is patently fallacious. Even though the finding of the first appellate court is factual in nature, he has reversed the finding of the trial court on baseless assumptions and wrong principles of law. In Budhwanti v. Gulab Chand Prasad, (1987) 2 SCC 153 it has been settled that where it is found that the finding of the appellate court is vitiated by the application of wrong tests or on the basis of conjectures and assumptions, that the High Court will be well within its rights in setting aside in a second appeal a patently erroneous finding in order to render justice to the party affected by the erroneous finding. Precisely, that is what has happened in this case. The learned first appellate court has applied wrong tests and has made wrong inferences, without there being sufficient materials for the same. The findings are also based on erroneous assumptions, because there are no materials indicating that EDKS merged with UCNI or was a part of the latter. Precisely, that is what has happened in this case. The learned first appellate court has applied wrong tests and has made wrong inferences, without there being sufficient materials for the same. The findings are also based on erroneous assumptions, because there are no materials indicating that EDKS merged with UCNI or was a part of the latter. As the finding of the first appellate court is vitiated by the application of wrong tests and based on erroneous assumptions, it is a question of law and the High Court will interfere. The appeal succeeds." 6. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact that Ext. 13 was not executed by a competent person and no title on the suit properties passed to Plaintiff 1 under Ext. 13, the High Court has rightly, in our opinion, found fault with the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. It would not explain as to why the properties were acquired in the name of the defendant and nothing prevented Plaintiff 1 to acquire the properties in its own name if the defendant was not an independent entity. 7. In the light of the findings recorded by the High Court and looking to the concurrent findings recorded on a material issue, we do not think that there will be any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 9. No costs. Appeal dismissed.