Judgment :- P.K. RAY, J. (1). The second appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1996 and 25th February, 1996 respectively passed by learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court at Howrah in title appeal No. 176 of 1993 reversing the Judgment and decree dated 29th May, 1993 and 5th June, 1993 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Howrah in title suit No. 266 of 1987, which was a suit for eviction of licensee on the ground of termination of licence. The appellant in the second appeal is the defendant of the suit. Appeal was preferred on several grounds, which reads to this effect: "I. For that the learned lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and also without considering the merits of the case was decreed the suit." II. For that the learned lower Appellate Court erred in law by not considering the status of this appellant/defendant. III. For that the learned lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate properly the exhibit 3, which is the original sale deed dated 70, May 1997 executed by the heirs deceased Jogmaya Dutta in favour of Bholanath Karui son of late Dukhiram and Jitendra Nath Karui son of late Dwarikanath Karui in equal share. IV. For that the learned lower Appellate Court has failed to prove the joint tenancy of both the parties which the learned Munsif vividly discussed in his Judgment. V. For that the learned lower Appellate Court below erred in law in not considering the joint tenancy with the plaintiff No. 2 by way of inheritance. VI. For that the learned lower Appellate Court below nowhere discussed in his delivering Judgment that the defendant/appellant is/was a licensee and even licensee has not been proved. VII. For that the learned lower Appellate Court below has failed to consider properly the exhibit 4, death certificate of Kamala Bala Karui dated 23rd February, 1972 and also Exhibit 6, death certificate of Krishna Chandra Karui husband of the defendant/appellant herein dated 17th October, 1974. VIII. VII. For that the learned lower Appellate Court below has failed to consider properly the exhibit 4, death certificate of Kamala Bala Karui dated 23rd February, 1972 and also Exhibit 6, death certificate of Krishna Chandra Karui husband of the defendant/appellant herein dated 17th October, 1974. VIII. For that the learned lower Appellate Court has failed to consider the exhibits marked as A to E in the plaint which was issued by the authorities concerned for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute that have not been considered at all by the learned Judge at the time of hearing of the case. IX. For that it would be evident from the exhibits marked A to E that the defendant/appellant herein and her husband and children resided in the suit premises more than years. X. For that the learned lower Appellate Court has totally failed to prove that the defendant/appellant herein was inducted as licensee in the disputed suit property since 1981 and also failed to prove joint tenancy with the plaintiff No. 2 on the basis of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs/respondents. XI. For that the plaintiffs/respondents have also failed to prove their own case by adducing evidence by fit and proper way. "XII. For that it is the duty of the plaintiffs/respondents to prove their own case by producing essential documents before the learned Court but that has not been done in this case and the learned Judge of the Appellate Court below without assigning properly allowed the appeal on contest and set aside the Judgment and decree of the learned Munsif." (2). When the appeal was admitted for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11, the Division Bench (Coram: N.K. Mitra and B.M. Mitra, JJ as their Lordships were) on 30th August, 1996, admitted the appeal for hearing on all the grounds as stated in the memo appeal being of substantial questions of law. All the aforesaid grounds, which were considered by the aforesaid Division Bench practically are within the domain of adjudicatory process on factual matrix, which with due respect is not within the field of consideration of a Second Appeal Court. However, since the parties have urged on all those points, which were considered as substantial question of law involved, the points are now being considered. Factual matrix of the case: (3). Plaintiffs admittedly are the cousin brothers of defendant. However, since the parties have urged on all those points, which were considered as substantial question of law involved, the points are now being considered. Factual matrix of the case: (3). Plaintiffs admittedly are the cousin brothers of defendant. They jointly filed the suit praying for eviction of defendant Binapani from the suit premises on the ground that Binapani was inducted as a licensee by the plaintiff No. 2 in the year 1981 and in the first weak of July, 1987 as the defendant refused to vacate the premises despite request made, a notice revoking the licence was issued on 27th July, 1987. Plaintiffs in the suit asserted that the suit premises was under the tenancy right of one Kamalabala, the mother of plaintiff No. 1 and despite the decree of eviction Kamalabala stayed in the said premises as the execution case being 5 of 1971 was dismissed with reference to the Judgment and decree of title suit No. 131 of 1970 as instituted by the landlord against the tenant Kamalabala, mother of plaintiff No. 1. In the year 1981, defendant Binapani approached plaintiff No. 2, the brother to have accommodation in the suit premises and the defendant No. 2 as was leaving in the joint mess with plaintiff No. 1, cousin brother, granted licence to reside, which was revoked in terms of the notice aforesaid. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the property by registered deed of sale on 7th May, 1987. Case of the defendant: (4). Defendant resisted the suit by contending that never she was a licensee but she is the co-tenant in view of the fact that her father was the original tenant of the suit premises. It was the further case of defendant by producing some documentary evidence, namely, the copy of the voter list, copy of the transfer certificate of her children issued by School Authority that all through she was staying in the suit premises since the year 1947. The story of occupation as licensee as asserted by the plaintiff was absolutely a false story. Finding of Trial Court: (5). On considering the evidence on records as adduced by the parties as well as the documentary evidence, learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Howrah by the Judgment and decree aforesaid dismissed the suit on contest. The story of occupation as licensee as asserted by the plaintiff was absolutely a false story. Finding of Trial Court: (5). On considering the evidence on records as adduced by the parties as well as the documentary evidence, learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Howrah by the Judgment and decree aforesaid dismissed the suit on contest. Learned Munsif held that the plaintiff failed to prove their tenancy right in the suit premises prior to purchase of the suit property in the year 1987 but on the basis of the documentary evidence and oral evidence, learned Munsif held that Dwarikanath, the father of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant was the original tenant and accordingly dismissed the suit by holding that defendant is a co-tenant. 1st Appellate Courts view: (6). In appeal as preferred by the plaintiffs, learned 1st Appellate Court on scanning the material evidence on record held that the tenancy right of Dwarikanath was not proved and at the same time the tenancy right of the plaintiff No. 1 as legal heir of her mother, who suffered an eviction decree also was not proved. Hence, there was a concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court that the tenancy rights of the plaintiffs were not proved. Learned 1st Appellate Court considered the documentary evidence and held that there was no evidence of joint tenancy rights of Dwarikanath and as such the joint tenancy right as was set up as a defence by the defendant Binapani had no legal basis. The 1st Appellate Court considered the evidence that the husband of the defendant used to reside in another tenanted premises being 13/5, Acharya Para Lane, where he breathed last and as such the contention of the defendant that she was leaving all through in the suit premises since long back even after marriage was not legally sustainable. Considering those aspect and particularly on the fact that the plaintiffs became owners by purchase of the property in the near 1987 and as the defendant had no iota of right to reside therein, reversed the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and thereby allowed the appeal by directing the defendant to vacate the suit property. Case argued before this Court: (7). The appellant before this Court is the defendant Binapani. Case argued before this Court: (7). The appellant before this Court is the defendant Binapani. Learned Advocate of the appellant has invited this Court to reassess and scan the evidentiary value, namely, the documentary and the oral evidence. It has been argued that from the voter list and the school living certificates as were exhibited, the defendant proved her possession in the suit premises prior to the year 1981, which is the year fixed by the plaintiff as the year of grant of licence to live in favour of the defendant. It is accordingly urged that the plaintiff failed to prove their case. (8). This appeal has been resisted by the learned Advocate for the respondent, the plaintiffs of the suit, by contending, inter alia, that there is little scope before the Second Appeal Court to probe into the evidentiary value of the respective parties for the purpose of nullifying the Judgment and decree under appeal. Finding of this Court: (9). On considering the respective arguments of the parties, it appears before this Court that the learned 1st Appellate Court was wrong to hold that the exhibits (a) to (e) being the documents relating to the voter list as well as school living certificates could not be exhibited as those were issued after the suit was tiled. On perusal of the documentary evidence it appears that those exhibits were the certified copies of the original documents and as such the authentication of the documents were made when the documents were supplied as certified copy. In that view, the findings of the 1st Appellate Court is absolutely a wrong finding. This Court is of the view that the exhibits (a) to (e) series as were admitted in evidence were the valid documents but from the said documents it appears that in the voter list and in the transfer certificate the address has been mentioned as the suit premises, whereas it is in the evidence on record that the husband of the defendant used to stay in another tenanted premises. The learned 1st Appellate Court accordingly disbelieved the factum of possession of defendant in the suit premises prior to the year 1981 on the logic that a wife could not stay with the family members being separated from her husband when there was no case made out by the defendant that her family tie was broken and husband was not looking after the family. Learned 1st Appellate Court on analysis of the evidence on record, accordingly, came to the conclusion that the defendant was staying with all possibility with her husband along with family members and mere mentioning of address of the still premises in the voter list and/or in the transfer certificate of the children of defendant would not confirm the possesory right of the defendant, (10). Having regard to such state of affairs, since defendant failed to satisfy her right to possess the suit premises as a co-tenant by proving the tenancy right of Dwarikanath, the father of the defendant and since it was on record that the husband of the defendant was leaving in another premises where he breathed last, the findings of the learned 1st Appellate Court to that respect cannot be considered as illegal and/or arbitrary finding to face the wrath of Second Appeal Court for the purpose of quashing the impugned Judgment and decree under appeal. (11). Beside such, this Court is of the view that there is a limited scope of probing into the evidentiary value to conclude otherwise than the findings of 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court is the last Court of fact and law and when considering the evidentiary value of the parties concerned, the 1st Appellate Court concluded its Judgment disbelieving the story of the defendant and when it is on record that plaintiffs are the owners of the property, there is little scope to interfere with such findings of facts. On analysis of the evidentiary value, this Court is of the view that save and except the documentary evidence of exhibits (a) to (e), the defendant failed to prove her possessory right by any oral or documentary evidence, as a co-tenant or under any other field of rights. The exhibits (a) to (e) series even if are considered cannot bestow any right to the defendant to hold and possess the suit premises, as the defendant miserably failed to prove her case that she was a cotenant. The exhibits (a) to (e) series even if are considered cannot bestow any right to the defendant to hold and possess the suit premises, as the defendant miserably failed to prove her case that she was a cotenant. The plaintiffs on purchase of the property now have acquired a valuable right, which has been given much weightage by the 1st Appellate Court. (12). Considering those aspect of the matter as the Court of Second Appeal is neither a Court of facts to determine the issue, which has been finalized by the 1st Appellate Court and on scanning the documents as this Court is of the view that mere recording of the address in the voter list and/or in the transfer certificate of the children would not confer any right upon anybody to hold the same under a possessory right of the suit premises, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal itself. Since the argument of the appellant is simply based on the documents of exhibits (a) to (e) series to assert the possessory right over the property, which has been answered by this Court, this Court is not finding that there is any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. Judgment and decree under appeal stands confirmed. Time to vacate the suit premises by the appellant and to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-respondents are extended to two months more from this date, failing which the plaintiff of the suit would be at liberty to recover the possession of the suit premises in due course of law. Let Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith. Registry to take steps. Later: Let xerox certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously. Appeal dismissed