ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 10.1.2003 and decree dated 18.1.2003 of the affirmance passed by the District Judge, Simdega in Title Appeal No. 11 of 2002 upholding the judgment and decree, dated 20.7.2001 passed by the Munsif, Simdega in Title Suit No. 5 of 1999. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant-appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit lands. 3. The plaintiffs case was that the suit lands appertaining to Khata No. 163 of village Nanesera P.S. Simdega were recorded in the name of Lohra Kharia son of Mangra Kharia in the last Revisional Survey record of right, which were the subject matter of the suit. It was stated that the said Mangra Kharia was also known as Basrai Kharai Mangra Kharia and Basrai Kharia are the names of one and the same person. The plaintiffs are the descendants of the recorded tenant Lohra Kharia. It was stated that the plaintiff No. 1 was in service and taking undue advantage of his absence, defendants managed to gain over the local Karamchari and got rent receipt issued in their favour in respect of the suit lands. When the Plaintiff No. 1 came to know about the same, he filed a petition before the Circle Officer, Simdega for cancellation of jamabandi shown in the names of the defendants. The C.O. recommended the same to the L.R.D.C. Simdega and ultimately it was placed before the Additional collector Gumla as Misc. Case No. 1/94-95. The Additional Collector held that the defendants names were illegally entered in jamabandi although they were not even in possession of the land. He, however, observed that the cancellation of Jamabandi is beyond his jurisdiction and accordingly parties were directed to approach the Civil Court. It was stated that the defendants being the legal heirs and successors of the said settles are claiming the suit lands on the basis of a sada surrender deed showing surrender of his right by Silbanus Kharia son of Lohra Kharia in favour of the land lord who allegedly then settled the entire suit land by a soda hukumnama dated 28.1.1955. According to the plaintiffs, the same are false and fabricated. According to the plaintiffs, the same are false and fabricated. Lohra Kharia had no son named as Silbanus Kharia who could have surrendered the suit land and as such the defendants had got no right and title over the suit lands. 4. Defendants contested the suit mainly on the ground that genealogy and relationship shown in the plaint was not correct and that Mangra Kharia had only son named as Lohra Kharia who had a son named Silbanus Kharia. It was contended that the plaintiffs are descendant of the recorded tenant of Khata Nos. 154 and 155 which stands in the name of Lohra Kharia, Mangra Kharai and Konda Kharia sons of Basraia Khari and the plaintiffs are neither the legal heirs of the recorded tenant of Khata No. 163 which is the subject matter of the suit nor they are in cultivating possession of the suit lands. It was pleaded by the defendants that Silbanus Kharia who was the son of the recorded tenant surrendered the entire suit land to the Ex-Landlord who came in possession over the same and subsequently settled the said land with the defendant by virtue of a soda hukumnama dated 28.1.1955 and since the said settlement they have been in possession of the suit land on paying the rent to the Ex-Landlord and subsequently after vesting of the zamindari to the State Government. 5. On the basis of the pleadings the main points of controversy was whether silbanus Kharia was the son of Lohra Kharia and whether the Genealogy and relationship shown by the plaintiff was correct. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidences and on thorough appraisal of the evidences the trial Court came to the findings that there was no evidence of quality conforming to the requirement of Section 50 of the Evidence Act for proving the relationship and Genealogy by the plaintiffs and held that the plaintiffs failed to establish his case either by oral evidence or documentary evidence. The suit was thus dismissed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred a regular appeal before the District Judge, Simdega. The appellate Court also heard the party at length and considered the evidences and materials on record and after scrutinizing the evidence concurred with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred a regular appeal before the District Judge, Simdega. The appellate Court also heard the party at length and considered the evidences and materials on record and after scrutinizing the evidence concurred with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court. 6. Mr, Nawal Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are vitiated as the evidences on record have not been meticulously considered. The plaintiffs are by caste Kharia and they are ignorant of the things and good quality of evidence cannot be expected from them. According to the learned counsel, the evidences which have been adduced by the plaintiffs, are sufficient and in conformity with the requirement of law to prove their case and as such judgment and decree of both the Courts below are erroneous in law, In this second appeal this Court cannot go into the sufficiency and insufficiency of evidences rather this Court has to see as to whether the findings of the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidences or not. On perusal of the judgment of the Courts below, I find that the Court below have thoroughly scrutinized the evidences and found that there was no competent in evidence to prove genealogy and relation ship in accordance with the provision of Section 50 of the Evidence Act and have recorded their findings dismissing the plaintiffs suit. I find no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below giving rise to any substantial question of law. 7. This appeal is accordingly dismissed