Judgment : The plaintiffs are the appellants-appellants. 2. They have assailed the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2008 passed by the District Judge, Latehar in T.A. No.07/2007 whereby learned court below has upheld the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.11/28 of 2003 by learned Sub Judge-I, Latehar and dismissed the appeal. 3. The plaintiffs had filed Title Suit No.11/28 of 2003 seeking a decree of declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit land. 4. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land appertaining to Khata No.10, Plot No.137, Area 0.60 acres of village Hutar, P.S. and District Latehar was recorded in the name of one Dhani Singh in Cadestral Survey. The said recorded tenant had surrendered the land by virtue of a deed of Istifanama dated 25.9.1928 to the ex-landlady Deoki Kuar wife of Sriman Maharaj Kumar Chhotelal Bindeshwari Prasad Nath Sahdeo, the landlord of Lavarpur Estate, Pargana Tori. The ex-landlord came in possession of the land and subsequently settled the same on 26.10.1928 in the name of Jamtali Mian -the plaintiffs' father. The plaintiffs' father was put in possession of the said land. The said settlement was followed by payment of rent to the ex-landlord. After vesting of zamindari in the State under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the ex-landlord filed return showing the name of Jamatali Mian, as raiyat in respect of the said land. On the basis of the return the State of Bihar (as then was) also recognised him as raiyat of the said land. Jamatali Mian had also some landed property under Khata No.35. The rent receipt was issued jointly in respect of Khata No.10 and 35. The plaintiffs were taken by surprise when they came to know that the defendants clandestinely got their names mutated in respect of said land. 5. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was, inter alia, stated that the said land was never surrendered by the rented raiyat in Cadestral Survey namely Dhani Singh. The story of surrender is false and got-up. After the death of Dargahi Sao his son namely Jangali Sao had inherited the landed property left by his father. Jangali Sao died leaving behind five sons – Girija Prasad, Harihar Prasad, Satan Sao, Murli Prasad and Gopal Prasad. The story of surrender is false and got-up. After the death of Dargahi Sao his son namely Jangali Sao had inherited the landed property left by his father. Jangali Sao died leaving behind five sons – Girija Prasad, Harihar Prasad, Satan Sao, Murli Prasad and Gopal Prasad. After death of their father, the five brothers jointly inherited the suit property along with other properties and came in peaceful possession thereof. The said land was partitioned among the brothers and the suit land was allotted to the share of Harihar Prasad. Harihar Prasad also died leaving behind his widow as sole heir. The widow of Harihar Prasad sold the disputed land to the defendants for valuable consideration by virtue of registered deed. The plaintiff's suit is barred by several provisions of law and the plaintiffs have no cause of action and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Both the parties adduced their evidences. Learned trial court framed several issues. The Issue No.4 was taken up as most important issue. 7. Learned trial court discussed the facts and evidences adduced by the parties in great detail and, on due appreciation thereof, came to the finding that the plaintiffs have got no right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. Learned trial court also decided other material issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. 8. Learned lower appellate court, on appeal, heard both the parties and thoroughly considered the facts and evidences on record. After due discussion of the evidences and materials on record, learned lower appellate court recorded his own finding of facts affirming the judgment and decree of learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 9. In this second appeal the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree of learned courts' below on the ground that the plaintiffs' evidences on surrender and settlement in 1928 is cogent and weighty. But the same has been arbitrarily discarded by learned courts of facts. The evidences of defendants have been unnecessarily given much weight and importance. There is no proper appreciation of the evidences and the surrounding circumstances. The judgment and decree of learned courts below are vitiated due to lop-sided and erroneous appraisal of the evidences by learned courts below. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions, as also the facts and materials on record. 11. There is no proper appreciation of the evidences and the surrounding circumstances. The judgment and decree of learned courts below are vitiated due to lop-sided and erroneous appraisal of the evidences by learned courts below. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions, as also the facts and materials on record. 11. As mentioned above, the appellants have sought to assail the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the findings have been arrived at by learned court below without properly appreciating the evidences of the plaintiffs. 12. On perusal of the judgment of learned courts below, I find that both the courts below have discussed the facts on record and evidences of the parties in detail and have arrived at their conclusion based on evidence. They have furnished several reasons in support of their findings. They have concurrently found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. The appellants' plea that their evidences have not been properly appreciated ,has no basis. 13. Further, if the two courts of facts have unanimously arrived at the findings of facts, on appreciation of the evidences, the same are binding on second appellate court. This Court cannot appraise evidences or interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned courts below. 14. I, therefore, find no ground made out to entertain this second appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.