Honble MAHESHWARI, J.—Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and having perused the impugned judgment and decree, this Court is satisfied that this second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and does not merit admission. Civil Suit for recovery of possession of the disputed property on the basis of title was tried and heard by the learned Trial Court after framing the following issues:- 1- vk;k oknxzLr edku o ckM+k Jherh dsljckbZ dh fefYd;r dk Fkk\ --- oknh 2- vk;k oknxzLr edku o ckM+k izfroknh us cuok;k\ --- izfroknh 3- vk;k oknxzLr edku o ckM+s dks Jherh dsljckbZ us oknh ds i{k esa fof/kor~ c{khk dj dCtk lqiqnZ dj fn;k\ --- oknh 4- vk;k izfroknh us fnukad 30-9-82 dks oknxzLr edku ij yxs oknh ds rkys dks rksM+dj edku ij dCtk dj fy;k ,oa ifjfk"V ¼d½ esa of.kZr oknh dk lkeku Hkh vius dCts esa dj fy;k\ --- oknh 5- vk;k oknh 15@& :- ekfld edku o ckM+s ds miHkksx ds cnys vUrdkyhu~ ykHk izfroknh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ --- oknh 6- vuqrks"k\ The learned Trial Court found in issues Nos. 1 and 3 that the plaintiff has failed to establish if his alleged predecessor Smt. Kesarbai had any title to the property in dispute and legally handed over possession to him. The learned First Appellate Court has also endorsed the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 3. The findings on issues Nos. 1 and 3 are essentially on facts after appreciation of evidence; and there is no such contention against such findings that they suffer from legal error or perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal. Learned counsel Mr. R.S. Saluja appearing for the appellants attempted to argue that the finding on issue No.2 as recorded by the learned Trial Court and the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 3 as recorded by the learned First Appellate Court remain incompatible and rather run contrary to each other. Learned counsel has referred to the observation as made by the First Appellate Court in its finding on issues Nos. 1 and 3 and submitted that if the house in question was constructed by Gulab Singh 30 years back then the finding on issue No.2 that the house was not constructed by the defendant cannot be said to be compatible with each other. The submission is not correct. 1 and 3 and submitted that if the house in question was constructed by Gulab Singh 30 years back then the finding on issue No.2 that the house was not constructed by the defendant cannot be said to be compatible with each other. The submission is not correct. The relevant observations as made by the learned First Appellate Court on issues Nos. 1 and 3 read as under:- Jherh dslj ckbZ ds ikl mä lEifÙk fdl nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij mls izkIr gqbZ Fkh] bl ckcr~ dksbZ nLrkost isk ugha fd;s gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gks lds fd oknxzLr laifÙk dsljckbZ ls iwoZ mlds ifr tksjkcj flag ds vFkok mlds llqj ds LokfeRo dh FkhA ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd oknh ds }kjk Jherh dsljckbZ dks crkSj lk{kh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA tcfd bl lEcU/k esa og loZJs"B lk{kh gks ldrh FkhA blds foijhr izfroknh dh vksj ls oknxzLr edku 30 o"kZ igys xqykc flag ds }kjk cukuk dgk x;k gSA oknxzLr laifÙk ds LokfeRo lEcU/kh dksbZ nLrkost oknh }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd oknxzLr laifÙk Jherh dsljckbZ dks mÙkjkf/kdkj ls izkIr gqbZ Fkh vkSj mls c[khl djus ds iw.kZ vf/kdkj izkIr FksA iznkZ 1 c[khl ukesa dsk lkfcr djkus ds fy, oknh }kjk dsljckbZ dks crkSj lk{kh izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls fLFkfr Li"V ugha gks ik;h gSaA blfy, bu nksuksa fook|dksa ds lEcU/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k gS] og mfpr gS rFkk mlesa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSaA** The observation about construction of the house as made in the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 3 is only relating to the stand of the defendant and that has got no adverse effect on the finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish if his alleged predecessor Smt. Kesarbai had any title, and if she validly transferred the property by way of gift. In fact, the finding by the learned Trial Court on issue No. 2 is to the effect that the defendant has failed to establish if the construction in question came to be raised by him. The learned First Appellate Court has noted the finding on issue No. 2 and has observed that such finding was not put to contention. In fact, the finding by the learned Trial Court on issue No. 2 is to the effect that the defendant has failed to establish if the construction in question came to be raised by him. The learned First Appellate Court has noted the finding on issue No. 2 and has observed that such finding was not put to contention. However, finding on issue No.2 cannot ensure to the benefit of the plaintiff; and when issues Nos. 1 and 3 are decided against him, the suit is bound to fail. Learned counsel further attempted to argue that the defendant having failed to establish the fact of raising construction and having failed to show any title, the suit could not have been dismissed. Suffice is to say on these submissions that the plaintiff having filed the suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title, the basic burden to prove his title nevertheless remained on the plaintiff; and his having failed to discharge such burden, the suit was required to be and has rightly been dismissed. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.