Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1994 by the Additionalýÿ District Judge - 5, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.9.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Suit No. 58 of 1972 Ram Lochan Gupta v. State of U.P. and another and partly decreeing the plaintiff’s suit. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff Ram Lochan filed Regular Suit No. 58 of 1972 Ram Lochan Gupta v. State of U. P. and another against the present appellant and respondent No.2 for declaration that the plaintiff is the lessee of defendants with respect to the Nazool land mentioned in para 7 of the plaint as well as mandatory injunction directing the defendants to mutate the name of the plaintiff in the Municipal records as lessee. Subsequently, by amendment, it was further prayed to press the decree of demolition of the constructions (tank) allegedly raised by the defendants on the eastern side of plot No.1 and the western side of plot No.2 shown in commissioner’s map by letters Ya, Fa, Ma, Bha. The defendants filed written statement inter alia denying the plaint case except that the land was nazool land in the ownership of the State Government and managed by the Nagar Palika and patta was executed in the year 1912 in favour of Parampal Singh and Prithvipal Singh. Besides documentary evidence, on behalf of plaintiff, Ram Lochan PW1, Ahmad Ali PW2 and Kunwar Kailash Braham PW3 were examined, whereas on behalf of defendants Satyanarayan Lal DW1, Vijay Kumar DW2, Vijay Kumar DW3 and Mohd. Fasi DW4 were examined. The Suit was dismissed on 2.7.1977 by the Court of Munsif, Kheri and the plaintiff’s appeal filed against the said decree was also dismissed. However, plaintiff’s Second Appeal No. 119 of 1978 was allowed and the decree of the Courts below was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh vide judgment dated 9.9.1983 passed by this Court. After remand, the plaintiff’s Suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.1994 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Kheri. However, plaintiff’s Second Appeal No. 119 of 1978 was allowed and the decree of the Courts below was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh vide judgment dated 9.9.1983 passed by this Court. After remand, the plaintiff’s Suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.1994 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Kheri. The trial Court recorded findings on issue nos.4, 5 and 6, in plaintiff’s favour, issue nos.8 and 9 were decided in affirmative. On issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the trial Court recorded findings that that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in dispute and the Suit was barred by limitation. 4. The plaintiff Ram Lochan Gupta filed Regular Civil Appeal no. 161 of 1994. During pendency of appeal, he died and was substituted by Narendra Kumar Gupta vide order dated 22.1.2005. The appeal has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kheri, partly decreeing the plaintiff’s Suit granting declaration that the plaintiff is the lessee of the property Nos. I, II, III, IV, V, VI mentioned in report and map of the Commissioner paper No.149-Ga and directing the defendant No.2 to make mutation in it’s records accordingly. However, this decree was made not applicable with respect to the portion of the land towards west shown by letter Pa, Fa, Ma, Bha in the Commissioner’s report and the map dated 10.5.1989 made part of the decree. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant (defendant No.1) has filed the instant appeal. This Court while entertaining the aforesaid Second Appeal and admitting the same, vide order dated 6.9.2005, framed following questions of law:- (a) Whether refusal by Nagar Palika (managing agency of state with respect to Nazul land), defendant No.2, to mutate plaintiff’s name in it’s record as lessee on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 24/27.2.1950, did cast cloud on plaintiff’s alleged rights in the land in dispute and did give rise a cause of action for filing suit for declaration? If yes, it’s effect. (b) Whether the finding of lower appellate Court on plaintiff’s possession is based on conjectures and surmises and not on any legally acceptable evidence? If yes, it’s effect. 6. If yes, it’s effect. (b) Whether the finding of lower appellate Court on plaintiff’s possession is based on conjectures and surmises and not on any legally acceptable evidence? If yes, it’s effect. 6. On behalf of the appellants, it has been argued that the findings of the lower Appellate Court on plaintiff’s possession is based on surmises and conjectures which cannot be legally accepted. It was further argued that the finding of possession has been recorded on the basis of inadmissible evidence and the material evidence has not been considered. In the body of appeal, various questions of law were formulated, but this Court framed the aforesaid two questions and admitted the appeal only on these questions. 7. On behalf of respondent No.1, it has been argued that the case does not involve any question of law, as the Courts below have recorded findings of fact, after considering the material on record and this Court while deciding the Second Appeal cannot alter the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court. To substantiate the aforesaid contentions, reliance has been placed on Krishnan v. Backiam and another [ (2007) 12 SCC 190 ] and Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyathi [ (2009) 3 SCC 287 ] and a decision of this Court reported in 2008 (26) LCD 1064 Kanchhi Lal Kalyan (Deceased) and others v. Smt. Bhagwan Dei and others. 8. The trial Court has dismissed the Suit of the respondent No.1 on the ground of it being time barred. The appellants’ counsel has also laid much emphasis that when the Nagar Palika refused to mutate the name of the plaintiff, it is proved that the answering respondent was having no right. The First Appellate Court in its judgment had observed that the purpose of entering the name of Nagar Palika record is for the purposes of recovery of rent. Nagar Palika has nothing to do with the rights of a person. There is no material evidence on record to show that the State Government which is the competent authority has ever disputed the rights of the respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, when the plaintiff apprehended that his rights should be infringed, he filed the Suit for permanent injunction. In this regard, a notice dated 26.3.1957 was sent by the plaintiff, but no reply was ever communicated. Therefore, when the plaintiff apprehended that his rights should be infringed, he filed the Suit for permanent injunction. In this regard, a notice dated 26.3.1957 was sent by the plaintiff, but no reply was ever communicated. Thereafter, when the notice of 60 days was sent by the plaintiff, it was replied that in case any Suit is filed, it will be opposed. The First Appellate Court on the basis of these averments came to the conclusion that prior to 1970, the appellants have never disputed the rights of the respondent-plaintiff. From the material on record, it is also evident that the respondent-plaintiff is a valid pattedar and he has fully proved his possession over the land in question. The construction of water-head tank over some portion of the land would not debar the plaintiff-respondent No.1 from claiming relief. It may be noted that conclusion about limitation is a finding of fact and is not open for interference in the Second Appeal. 9. The appellants have also argued that the Commissioner has not been examined by the Courts below to prove his report and the map (paper No. 149-Ga) and as such, it should not have been relied being inadmissible piece of evidence. This issue has also been dealt with by the First Appellate Court in detail. The First Appellate Court has observed that the report of the Commissioner was accepted only after hearing the parties to the Suit and at no point of time, any objection was ever raised by the appellant to the effect that the report is incorrect. It is a settled law that the objection has to be raised at the first instance and when no objection is raised, it will be presumed that the report is correct. 10. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court shows that the findings have been recorded on the basis of material on record and cannot be said that these are perverse. It is settled law that the High Court in Second Appeal is not permitted to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC. Furthermore, the findings of fact arrived at by the Court below are binding in Second Appeal. 11. In view of the above, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. Furthermore, the findings of fact arrived at by the Court below are binding in Second Appeal. 11. In view of the above, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and recorded its own findings on the facts in issue. 12. For the reasons stated here-in-above, the Second Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the First Appellate Court is affirmed. (Appeal dismissed) _____________