JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2001 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 9191/36/97 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 3.7.1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge 3rd, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 14/1987. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the said suit praying relief, inter alia, for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner having right, title and interest in respect of Schedule B premises and that the defendants have no right or interest in respect of the same and also for delivery of possession of the Schedule A property in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that the double storied building standing on a piece of land measuring 0.219 acres more or less situated in bank areas bearing TISCOs Holding No. B now Holding No. 2 described in Schedule A of the plaint within the Jamshedpur town originally leased out to Nariman B. Patel, father of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 by M/s. TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur by an indenture of lease dated 30.3.37 Nariman B. Patel subsequently constructed a double storied building. He assigned the said premises to his two sons (plaintiffs) by registered deed of assignment dated 18/19.7.1946. According to the plaintiffs, the said property thereafter vested in them and they have been all along residing in the same. The said lease which was for 30 years expired and thereafter the plaintiffs applied for renewal of the lease and M/s. TISCO leased out the said Schedule A property in their favour by virtue of the duly registered indenture of lease dated 18.8.1971. According to them the defendants had full knowledge about the same. The plaintiffs thus claimed that they have got exclusive right, title and interest over the same. The defendant was employed in TISCO and was allotted a Bungalow by the TISCO and he had been living there with his family. After retirement, the defendant suddenly came on 2.6.1986 and broke open the Northern portion of the first floor in absence of the plaintiffs and forcibly occupied the room along with the furniture and articles. The same was then resisted by the plaintiffs which led to a proceeding under Sections 144 and 107, Cr PC followed by the said suit. 3. After retirement, the defendant suddenly came on 2.6.1986 and broke open the Northern portion of the first floor in absence of the plaintiffs and forcibly occupied the room along with the furniture and articles. The same was then resisted by the plaintiffs which led to a proceeding under Sections 144 and 107, Cr PC followed by the said suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendant after taking usual legal pleas stated that their father was suffering from several mental and physical ailments and the deed of assignment was got executed by the plaintiffs in the state of his unsoundness of mind. The period of lease in the name of their father having expired, the building standing thereon has been jointly inherited by the plaintiff and the defendant along with their sisters. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs had no right to get the fresh lease deed executed only in their favour in the year 1966. The said lease was illegal and invalid and the same was obtained behind the back of the defendant No. 1. According to the defendant, they are the co-shares and even if the lease was executed in favour of the plaintiffs, it was for the benefit of all the co- sharer. 4. The plaintiffs and the defendants in support, of their respective claims adduced oral and documentary evidences. The trial Court framed several issues while dealing with the issue relating to the deed of assignment dated 18.7.1946 and that of the lease dated 18.8.1971 i.e. issues Nos. 5 and 6 came to the finding that after the expiry of lease period in the year 1967, the disputed property devolved upon the legal heirs of the original lessee and as the defendant No. 1 was one of the sons, he also became the co-owner of the suit property and thus the plaintiff failed to prove the absolute title to the property. The trial Court also decided other issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. 5. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed Title Appeal being TA No. 9/91 in the Court of the District Judge, Jamshedpur. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur. The trial Court also decided other issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. 5. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed Title Appeal being TA No. 9/91 in the Court of the District Judge, Jamshedpur. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur. The lower appellate Court in view of the controversies involved in the appeal himself thoroughly discussed, scanned and considered the evidences and materials on record and came to the finding that the trial Court having held that Ext. 4, the deed of assignment, was genuine, there was no question of devolving the property of the said deed of assignment to others or to the legal heirs of the assigner. The lower appellate Court has considered other legal aspects and come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have validity proved their right, title and interest over the suit property and that the defendant No. 1 has got no right and title and that the suit is maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. The appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Hence the second appeal. 6. Mr. P.K. Pd. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is vitiated in law on account of errors committed by him in interpreting tile documents and misconstruing the provisions of law. According to him, the initial lease of deed was for 30 years and after expiry, all the sons of the original lessee jointly inherited the said interest. Regarding the deed of assignment, the learned counsel submitted that it should be considered in the light of the provisions of Section 90 of the Trust Act and the possession of the plaintiffs being as a trustee, the defendant can not be excluded from inheritance of rights and interest in the suit property. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent lease of 1971 was on the basis of the earlier lease and as such no fresh and exclusive right accrued to the plaintiffs by virtue of the said lease deed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the documents of the Courts below, I find that the submissions of the learned counsel are devoid of merit. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the documents of the Courts below, I find that the submissions of the learned counsel are devoid of merit. When during the subsistence of the earlier lease the lessee assigns his right and interest in favour of the plaintiffs, by a registered deed of assignment, there was no question of inheritance of the said property after expiry of the lease Section 90 of the Indian Trust Act postulates gaining of an advantage in derogation of rights of the other persons interested in the property or owning the property as representing all persons interested in such property. In the instant case the plaintiffs had been holding leasehold interest as the assignees and subsequently as lessees themselves by virtue of the lease deed dated 18.8.1971 and not as a representative or as co-owners. There is thus no application of Section 90 of the Trust Act in the instant case. The trial Court misdirected itself in law in holding that in spite of the transfer of the said leasehold right by virtue of deed of assignment, the suit property devolved upon the plaintiffs and the defendants after the expiry of the lease. In my considered view, the appellate Court has rightly considered all the aspects and arrived at the findings of facts on the basis of the evidences and materials on record which are in accordance with law. There is no error in the said findings giving rise to any substantial question of law to be considered by this Court. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed.