Pratap Kumar Ray, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal arose out of challenge of judgment and decree dated 21st January, 1994 passed in Title Appeal No. 407 of 1992 by learned Assistant judge at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas, affirming the judgment and decree dated 25th July, 1992 passed in Title Suit No. 498 of 1977 by learned 1st Court of Munsif at Diamond Harbour, District South 24-Parganas. This appeal was preferred by defendant No. 1 of the suit as appellant. By the order dated 11th april, 1994 while admitting the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of civil Procedure, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that the appeal would be heard on the ground Nos. I, III, IV, X, XIV and the added grounds i. e. ground No. XX. The aforesaid grounds read to this effect: -"i. For that the Courts below erred in law in ignoring the unimpeachable documentary evidence produced in the case; the Courts below erred in law in failing to consider the presumption of possession, may the presumption of title available to the entry in the Cadastral Survey, record-of-rights and the revisional record of rights. III. For that the basis of the defence was the provisions of the hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Courts below were totally under misconception in holding that the submission of the appellant was to the contrary; the Courts below were wrong in holding that the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act have no application in the appeal as submitted by the appellant. IV. For that the Courts below erred in failing to hold that Sm. Surobala inherited the disputed property acquired by Sm. Narayani by her own income as the daughter, of Sm. Narayani and passed the same till long after the Hindu Succession Act as absolute owner under the said law. X. For that the Courts below erred in law in holding that sm. Surobala and Sm. Lakshmibala were not the legal heirs according to do Hindu Law; the Courts below should have held that Sm. Surobala as married daughter of Sm. Narayani inherited the property of Sm. Narayani and Sm. Lakshmibala was heir of Sm. Surobala and further by registered deed of gift dated 1371 gave and all the disputed property to Sm. Lakshmibala. XIV. Lakshmibala were not the legal heirs according to do Hindu Law; the Courts below should have held that Sm. Surobala as married daughter of Sm. Narayani inherited the property of Sm. Narayani and Sm. Lakshmibala was heir of Sm. Surobala and further by registered deed of gift dated 1371 gave and all the disputed property to Sm. Lakshmibala. XIV. For that the Court below were wrong in holding that there was no dispute the Muchiram died in 1327 B. S. and that Sm. Narayani died in 1350 B. ,s. and that Sm. Narayani got the interest of Widow's estate over the suit land and that disputed land belonged to Muchiram. XX. For that in absence of any evidence the Courts below erred in law in holding that plaintiff succeeded as revisioners on the supposition that the property belonged to Muchiram. " ( 2 ) TITLE Suit No. 498 of 1977 was filed praying (a) declaration of title of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the predecessor in interest of plaintiff No. 3 in Schedule 'ka' and 'kha' properties as reversioner of Late Muchiram Mistri and further declaration that defendants has no title and possession over the property; (b) mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance over the possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs during pendency of the suit and/or in future; (c) in the event prayer (a) is not allowed by the Court, then a declaration that in the suit land the plaintiffs have acquired title by purchase of the suit land and a mandatory injunction to that effect restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:" (1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (2) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (3) Is the suit barred by Section 34 S. R. Act? (4) Have the plffs. title and possession over the suit land? (5) Are the plffs. entitled to a decree for declaration and partition as prayed for? (6) To what other relief, if any, are the plffs. entitled?" ( 3 ) WHILE adjudicating the suit, the trial Court framed the main point to this effect that the dispute relates to the issue as to whether the suit land belong to Muchiram or Narayani as a personally owned property with absolute interest. (6) To what other relief, if any, are the plffs. entitled?" ( 3 ) WHILE adjudicating the suit, the trial Court framed the main point to this effect that the dispute relates to the issue as to whether the suit land belong to Muchiram or Narayani as a personally owned property with absolute interest. It was the plaintiffs case that after death of Narayani they inherited the properties left by Muchiram in respect of 'ka' schedule property but subsequently, they purchased the 'ka' schedule property from Surobala, daughter of Muchiram. As per 'kha' schedule property, plaintiff inherited the property as the successor in interest of Nabin as well as reversioner of Muchiram. To satisfy the claim as reversioners it was the case of the plaintiffs that the Muchiram died on 1327 b. S. i. e. long before commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and narayani, widow of Muchiram, accordingly, acquired only the interest of widowed estate over the suit land and after death of Narayani the inheritance over the properties of Muchiram devolved upon the heirs of Muchiram's aguates and by virtue of old Hindu Law of inheritance in vogue prior to 1956, the plaintiffs, the reversioners of Muchiram, inherited the properties of Muchiram. Defendant on the other hand submitted a defence case that in the cadastral settlement record of rights, the suit plot has been mentioned in the name of Narayani as absolute owner and in the revisional settlement record of rights, the name of Surobala as legal heir of Narayani was recorded along with Lakshmibala in equal share being the two daughters of Narayani and accordingly the claim of the plaintiff as reversioners of Muchiram had no basis. It was the further defence case that the plaintiffs admitted Surobala as the legal heir who inherited the property from narayani and thereby purchased the property from Surobala. It was the further defence case that Surobala by deed of gift transferred the property measuring 27 satak of land of the suit plot in favour of defendant No. 1. It was the further defence case that the plaintiffs admitted Surobala as the legal heir who inherited the property from narayani and thereby purchased the property from Surobala. It was the further defence case that Surobala by deed of gift transferred the property measuring 27 satak of land of the suit plot in favour of defendant No. 1. Learned Court below considered the documentary evidence as exhibited and scanned the oral evidence of the parties including their respective conduct and ultimately held so far as the issue of title of the suit properties to this effect:"there is no dispute that Narayani died on 1350 B. S. i. e. before the passing of Hindu Succession Act and as such Surobala and lakshmibala were not the legal heirs according to old Hindu Law and so they had no right to inherit any property of Muchiram and Narayani. Considering the pleadings and the evidences of documentary and oral, i find that though Surobala and Lakshmibala never inherited any land left by Muchiram yet according to the provisions of old Hindu Law, yet the act and conduct of the plff. shows that they admitted earlier about the right of inheritance of Surobala over the properties of Muchiram in the suit plot because plffs. predecessors i. e. Nritya Gopal and Jitendra purchased land from Surobala comprised in the suit plot. Rather, if Narayani had widowed estate over the properties of Muchiram they had no right, to sell the said land to anybody because such interest over the land were qualified to Narayani and she had no capacity to dispose of the same. Yet, inspite of that, plffs. predecessor Muktaram purchased land from Narayani over the share of Muchiram in the said 9 bigha 13 kata 6 chitak land. In conclusion, the documentary evidences compels me to form an opinion that according to line of succession, the plffs, as surviving heirs of Santatan inherited half portion over 2 Ekar 03 satak land. 07 satak land was tenanted to other persons. So the plffs. possessed half share over 1 Ekhar 96 satak. Narayani as heirs of Muchiram, got 98 satak land i. e. half of 1 Ekar 96 satak land. She sold 17 satak land to Muktaram. So Narayani used to hold 81 satak land. Surobala as daughter of Narayani possessed 81 satak iand. Surobala sold 25-2/3 satak land (ka scheduled) to the plffs. predecessor. Narayani as heirs of Muchiram, got 98 satak land i. e. half of 1 Ekar 96 satak land. She sold 17 satak land to Muktaram. So Narayani used to hold 81 satak land. Surobala as daughter of Narayani possessed 81 satak iand. Surobala sold 25-2/3 satak land (ka scheduled) to the plffs. predecessor. So after such sale Surobala had 55-2/3 satak land. Surobala had no authority to transfer more land than the said 55-1/3 satak land and the heirs of Lakshmibala i. e. substituted defdts has only 55-1/3 satak land over the suit khatian. "regarding the possession, it is the positive finding of the trial Court as follows: -"regarding possession, on perusal of documentary evidences and on scanning the trend of oral evidences, I find, that the defdts have possession over the suit land, from the time of Surobala and they have not taken forceful possession over the suit land after the institution of this suit. " ( 4 ) IN view of such, the trial Court decreed the suit in part on contest by declaring the right title and interest over the entire 'ka' schedule property of the plaint in favour of the plaintiff and the right title and interest over 98 satak land in 'kha' schedule property of the plaint in favour of the plaintiffs by adjudicating the issue to this effect: -"so the prayer of the plff. for evicting the defdts, from the suit land by way of Mandatory injunction is not tenable and as such, I do not consider the prayer of Mandatory injunction of the plffs. Hence, in conclusion, I hold that the plff. has right title and interest over 25 satak land in 'ka' schedule property and 98 satak land in 'kha' schedule property of the plaint and as such they are entitled to get decree in part thus, the suit succeed in part. I do not pass any permanent injunction order and Mandatory injunction order over the defdts. because they are co-sharers in the suit plot and there specific place of possession could not be ascertained at this stage. " ( 5 ) AN appeal was laid by the defendant No. 1 Nemai Pramanik challenging the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, which was registered as Title appeal No. 407 of 1991. because they are co-sharers in the suit plot and there specific place of possession could not be ascertained at this stage. " ( 5 ) AN appeal was laid by the defendant No. 1 Nemai Pramanik challenging the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, which was registered as Title appeal No. 407 of 1991. The 1 st Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal on contest and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court held to this effect: -"it appears that in Exhibit No. 1, there is clearly admission of narayani that the property in question belong to her uncle-in-law and husband and Narayani sold that life estate to Muktaram. So it appears that Narayani clearly admitted in Exhibit-1 that property belonged to her husband and unlce-in-law. There is no dispute that Narayani died on 1350 B. S. i. e. before the passing of Hindu Succession Act and as such surobala and Lakshmibala were not the legal heirs according to old Hindu law and they have no right to inherit the property of Muchiram and narayani. Learned Munsif rightly observed that Surobala had 55-1/3 decimals land. So, substituted defendants have only 55-1/3 decimals land over the suit khatian. After going through the oral and documentary evidence i find that the learned Munsif was right in decreeing the suit in part and also right in observing that respondent has right, title and interest over 'ka' schedule of the plaint and 98 decimals of land in 'kha1 schedule. " ( 6 ) WITH that findings and observation, the 1 st Appeal Court did not interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal. ( 7 ) IN this second appeal substantial question of law as framed while admitting the appeal, have already been set out. Now on hearing the respective arguments of parties, the Court has to consider whether those are at all falling within the domain of substantial question of law under Section 100 of Civil procedure Code. Ground No. 1 of the Memo Appeal read to this effect: -"i. For that the Courts below erred in law in ignoring the unimpeachable documentary evidence produced in the case; the Courts below erred in law in failing to consider the presumption of possession, may the presumption of title available to the entry in the Cadastral Survey, record-of-rights and the revisional record of rights. " ( 8 ) THE said ground relates to reopening on the issue of possession. When both the Courts below came to a concurrent finding about possession of the suit plot, there is little scope to interfere with such findings in the second appeal. It is a settled law that 1st Appeal Court is the final Court of determining the question of law and the fact. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, reported in 2001 (3) SCC 179 . ( 9 ) HAVING regard to such, question of possession since cannot be the subject-matter of substantial question of law involved upon relying upon the judgment Santosh Hazari (supra), this Court is of the view that ground No. 1 is not at all involved with any substantial question of law. ( 10 ) GROUND No. IIl, the appellant at the time of hearing has not urged the point. Considering the respective conduct of the parties when both the Courts below held that the plaintiff themselves purchased the property from Surobala on accepting the Surobala's title over the property, the claim of the plaintiffs as reversioners had no basis. This Court accordingly is not considering that point as of any substantial question of law involved, more so, this point not at all has been urged. Accordingly, this is answered against the appellant. Ground No. IV reads to this effect: -"iv. For that the Courts below erred in failing to hold that Sm. Surobala inherited the disputed property acquired by Sm. Narayani by her own income as the daughter, of Sm. Narayani and passed the same till long after the Hindu Succession Act as absolute owner under the said law," ( 11 ) FROM the factual evidence i. e. the oral evidence of the parties and the documentary evidence as exhibited, both the Courts below came to a concurrent finding that the Surobala and Lakshmibala did not inherit the property of Narayani, deceased wife of Muchiram in view of the limited interest and having regard to the conduct of the parties as the matter has been in depth discussed by both the Courts below granting relief to defendants also, this Court is not finding any merit to consider the ground as of substantial question of law involved. Ground No. XX, the added ground reads to this effect: -"xx. Ground No. XX, the added ground reads to this effect: -"xx. For that in absence of any evidence the Courts below erred in law in holding that plaintiff succeeded as revisioners on the supposition that the property belonged to Muchiram. " ( 12 ) FROM the material evidence-on-record and the findings of the Court below it appears that though there is a finding that Surobala did not inherit property of widowed estate but as the plaintiffs accepted the title of Surobala in the property in question, granted relief to the successor in interest of Surobala. Accordingly, there is no basis of framing this question as substantial question of law involved. Both the Courts below held the right of the plaintiffs as reversioners of Muchiram, but having regard to the conduct of the plaintiffs, namely, the purchase of the property from the legal heir of Narayani, the deceased widow of Late Muchiram, when decided the issue, there is no legal basis to argue this point. As such it cannot come within the domain of substantial question of law involved relying the case Santosh Hazari (supra ). Having regard to the material facts and arguments as advanced, accordingly, this Court is of the view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this case for determination by this Court. As both the Courts below by their concurrent findings, on scanning the evidence-on-record and having regard to the conduct of the parties, held that after Narayani the property did not devolve upon the legal heirs but as the plaintiffs themselves purchased the property from Surobala decided the issue, accordingly, this Court is not finding any substantial question of law involved. Appeal accordingly thus fails and it stands dismissed. The judgment and finding under appeal stand confirmed. All interim orders stand vacated. Registry is directed to send back the Lower Court records forthwith to the Court below.