JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This Second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Goalpara in Title Appeal No. 39/1999 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.08.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Goalpara in Title Suit No. 12/1997. The facts of the case may, in brief, be set out as follows: 2. The respondents were the plaintiffs where as the appellant was the defendant. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 12/1997 seeking a decree that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and also for declaration of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by evicting the defendants therefrom. Land measuring 22 ft X 15 ft situated at Tilapara-Goalpara and covered by Dag No. 85 (Old)/110(New) belong to the plaintiff Sri Sri Shyam Sundar Hati Dewalaya and managed by the shebaits of the Dewalaya. According to the plaintiff, the defendant took permission from the plaintiff through its shebaits for entering into some portion of the suit land. Such permission was granted in the year 1990 on condition that the defendant would vacate the suit land whenever it was required by the shebaits. On 30.01.1997 plaintiff served notice on the defendant to vacate possession of the suit land but the same was declined by the defendant. At this stage, the respondents filed the suit. 3. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. The case projected by the defendant in the written statement was that he was in possession of land measuring about 60 ft X 60 ft and not 22 ft X 15 ft and claimed title over the said land by pleading adverse possession. 4. The trial Court after considering the rival pleadings framed the following issues:- 1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit land is a part of Sri Sri Shyam Sundar Hati? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are Shebaits as alleged in the plaint? 5. Whether the defendant is occupying the suit land on permission from the plaintiff? 6. Whether the defendant is occupying the suit land since about 25 years back? 7. Whether the defendant has acquired right and title over the suit land by way of adverse possession? 8. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for? 5. 5. Whether the defendant is occupying the suit land on permission from the plaintiff? 6. Whether the defendant is occupying the suit land since about 25 years back? 7. Whether the defendant has acquired right and title over the suit land by way of adverse possession? 8. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for? 5. After considering the evidence adduced and after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal before the lower Appellate Court. By the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2000 the lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 7. This Court by order dated 12.03.2001 while admitting the appeal had framed the following substantial question of law:- Whether the defendant has acquired title over the land by adverse possession? 8. None appears for the appellant. 9. Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned Senior counsel appears for the respondents/plaintiff. 10. The core issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is the claim of adverse possession over the suit land made by the defendant. This aspect of the matter was gone into by the trial Court in the following manner:- The defendant have been possessing the land not from the year 1990 but from more than that defendant deposed as DW 1 Uday Narayan Jha that he has been in possession of suit land since, 1972. After a survey in the year 1996 the defendant claim the suit land. The other DWs also confirm the long possession against the plaintiff as discussed in the issue No. 5 above. Accordingly, this issue No. 7 is decided in affirmative and in favour of the defendant. 11. The lower Appellate Court after going through the evidence on record held that the finding of the trial Court was not in conformity with the evidence on record and that the finding recorded that the defendant was in adverse possession over the suit land was clearly erroneous. The lower Appellate Court examined the issue in the following manner:- (8) First of all, I touch Issue No. 3, same appears to be vital one "Whether the suit land is part of Sri Sri Shyam Sundar Hati? The lower Appellate Court examined the issue in the following manner:- (8) First of all, I touch Issue No. 3, same appears to be vital one "Whether the suit land is part of Sri Sri Shyam Sundar Hati? The learned Court below, has discussed the Issue No. 3 ultimately it has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants, while discussing the Issue No. 3, the learned Court below has pointed out that the plaintiff has proved that the land is belonging to the plaintiff Sri Sri Shyam Sundar Hati. Accordingly, the learned Court below decided the Issue No. 3 in affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff. (9) In this context, I have perused evident of the plaintiff Sri Tikan Medhi and his supporting witness PW 2, Jayanta Kalita and relevant papers on record those have been exhibited in TS No. 11/1997. I have perused evidences of DWs also. It appears from cross-examination of DW 2, Sri Mukunda Mohan Adhikary that said D.W. 2 in his cross-examination has stated that the suit land (Disputed plaint schedule mentioned land) belonged to Sri Sri Shyam Sundar Dewalaya. Further has said that father-namely-Lt Praneswar Medhi of the Plaintiff, of Sri Sri shyam Sundar Hati had managed Dewalaya land. DW 3 in his examination in Chief has deposed that Sri Praneswar Medhi had managed the Dewalaya Mandir. DW 4 in his examination in chief has stated almost same as stated by DW 3. DW 5 in his examination in chief he has stated by almost same as stated by DWs 3 & 4. After all, DW 5 in his evidence has said that Sri Praneswar Medhi father of the plaintiff had managed the "Dewalaya" land. DW 6 Sri Tika Ram Sarma in his examination in Chief he has stated that the Defendant has constructed house upon the Plaintiff's land Sri Shyam Sundar Hati. After weighing evidence of PW's and DW's it is seen that Sri Praneswar Medhi father of the Plaintiff Sri Sri Shyam Sundar Hati, Goalpara, represented by its Shebaits and his brothers, S/o Late Praneswar Medhi a resident of Tilapara Shyam Sundar Road, Goalpara had managed the plaint schedule mentioned land i.e. "Dewalaya land" measuring 22 ft X 15 ft from the very beginning. Further, it may be mentioned here that the defendant could not be able to show that he/defendant was in possession of "Dewalaya Land" through any documentary evidence except oral evidence. The learned Court below while discussing the Issue No. 4 it has been discussed that since long time, the plaintiffs are managing the Mandir, Dewalaya, ultimately, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Goalpara has decided the Issue No. 4 in favour of the plaintiffs'. It is seen that from the evidences and others on record of learned Court below that learned Court below has rightly decided Issue No. 4 in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants. (10) The learned Court below has given the Issue No. 5 in favour of the defendant against the plaintiffs. But, I find that the learned Court below has over looked the deposition i.e. cross-examination, particularly the deposition of DW 2, Sri Mukunda Mohan Adhikary. DW 2 in his cross-examination he has cleared the picture about possession over the suit land. In my opinion, learned Court below has not properly decided Issue No. 5. (11) Regarding Issue No. 6, the learned Court below has not discussed properly. The learned Court below has given much emphasized only upon the issue No. 5. Further the learned Court below has not clearly decided and disposed of Issue No. 7. The learned Court below has relied upon the evidence of DW 1 only. (12) In view of entire discussions made over and after carefully scrutinized the evidences of the parties, and other papers on record, I see, that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Goalpara has not dispose of TS No. 12/1997 in accordance with law. Apart from that has not properly discussed and decided Issues 5, 6, 7 & 8 as well as not properly scrutinized the evidence of the parties. As a result, I allow the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, accordingly set-aside the judgment/decree passed by learned Court below dated 23.08.1999 in TS 12/1997. As such, the plaintiffs/appellants represented by its Shebaits, S/o late Praneswar Medhi and other brother's of the plaintiff Sri Shyam Sundar Hati is entitled to get the decree as prayed for in the plaint of TS 12/1997. Accordingly decreed. 12. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as the relevant record. As such, the plaintiffs/appellants represented by its Shebaits, S/o late Praneswar Medhi and other brother's of the plaintiff Sri Shyam Sundar Hati is entitled to get the decree as prayed for in the plaint of TS 12/1997. Accordingly decreed. 12. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as the relevant record. Upon consideration of the materials on record and the decision of the lower Appellate Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court rejecting the plea of adverse possession of the defendant over the suit land does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity and does not require any interference of this Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The lower Appellate Court arrived at a finding of fact on due consideration of the evidence. This Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding and accordingly, the appellate judgment and decree dated 13.11.2000 is hereby affirmed. 13. The substantial question of law as framed is therefore, answered in the negative against the appellant and in favour of the defendants. 14. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed but without any order as to cost. Registry to draw up the decree and send back the LCR. Appeal dismissed.