JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. : Second Appeal No.250 of 1997 has been preferred by one Kasinath Nandi challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Addl. District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No.127 of 1996 with a prayer to set aside the same and restore the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack in Title Suit No.368 of 1989. Second Appeal No.21 of 1998 has been filed by the defendant No.2 in the aforesaid suit against the self-same judgments. Second Appeal No.21 of 1998 has not been admitted, but, however, as it is an analogous matter, the same was heard along with Second Appeal No.250 of 1997 and both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.Kasinath Nandi was the defendant No.1 in the suit before the trial Court and respondent No.1 before the lower appellate Court. During pendency of the second appeal, he expired and his legal heirs have been substituted in his place. The present respondent No.10 was the defendant No.2 in the suit before the trial Court and respondent No.2 before the lower appellant Court. One Purusottam Mishra was the sole plaintiff in T.S. No.386 of 1989, who was the sole appellant in T.A. No.127 of 1996. He expired after passing of the judgment and decree by the lower appellate Court and the respondent Nos.1 to 9 being his legal heirs have been added as respondent Nos.1 to 9 in the present second appeal. 3.The original plaintiff-Purusottam Mishra filed T.S. No.368 of 1989 with a prayer to declare his right, title and interest over the disputed properties and to further declare that none of the defendants have any right, title and interest over the disputed properties. He also prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the disputed properties from defendant No.2 and for any other relief. 4.The case of the plaintiff in gist is that the suit holding bearing No.186 in Ward No.15 of Cuttack Municipality, comprising of three living rooms, one kitchen room, one store room, one bathroom and one courtyard, situated over Plot No.399 under Khata No.437 as per C.S. Settlement 1927 corresponding to Hal Plot No.79 under Hal Khata No.829 at Beparisahi, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack is the disputed property. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the disputed property originally belonged to one Parasu Mallick, who sold the same to one Kanchanamala Panda, who subsequently sold the same to the plaintiff on 6.6.1977. Defendant No.2, Late Harisankar Buxi, was his close friend ‘MITA’ and both belonged to Sambalpur. After purchase of the above property, i.e. Plot No.399 along with another Plot No.398, the defendant No.2 requested the plaintiff to allow him to remain in the suit holding and accordingly, the plaintiff permitted him. The house of defendant No.1 adjoins the disputed property. The defendant No.1 having no right, title and interest over the suit holding claimed the suit property to be his by virtue of the decree passed in H.R.C. Case No.34 of 1988 initiated by him for evicting the defendant No.2. The plaintiff is the real owner of the disputed property having valid right, title and interest and the defendant No.1 has absolutely no right, title and interest over the said disputed property and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 respectively. H.R.C. Case was filed by the defendant No.1 falsely claiming the disputed property to be his and the claim of adverse possession of the defendant No.2 in his pleading in the H.R.C. case created a cloud of doubt regarding title of the plaintiff over the disputed property for which he filed the suit though Kanchanmala Panda having rightful owner in possession of the properties i.e. Plot No.399 under Khata No.437 measuring an area of Ac.0.047 decimals and Plot No.398 under Khata No.438 measuring an area of Ac.0.018 decimals, in total Ac.0.065 decimals, sold the entire area of the said two plots to the plaintiff vide Registered Sale Deed dated 6.6.1977 by which the plaintiff had acquired the title and possession over the same. 5.Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared in the suit and filed separate written statement. The plea of the defendant No.1 was that one Hara Mohan Nandy, his grandfather purchased the suit property from Makaram Ali, who is the rightful owner in 1926. As the Sabak Settlement proceeding was over by then, a wrong recording was done in the name of Parasu Mallick in 1927 Settlement R.O.R. in respect of the suit land along with other adjoining land owned by him. As the Sabak Settlement proceeding was over by then, a wrong recording was done in the name of Parasu Mallick in 1927 Settlement R.O.R. in respect of the suit land along with other adjoining land owned by him. As his grandfather was ill and bedridden for a long period just after final publication of the R.O.R. in 1931 Settlement, he could not take proper steps for correction of the R.O.R. However, after his death, his son Jagamohan Nandy mutated the suit holding in the Cuttack Municipality and got the holding recorded in his name and paid Municipal tax regularly and was in peaceful possession of the same along with other properties nearby. While possessing Holding No.186, he inducted one Harishankar Buxi, the father of defendant No.2 as a tenant over the same, who was regularly paying rent to him. The said Jagamohan Nandy expired in or about 1974 and after his death, his wife Susilabala Dasi became the owner of the said property and the tenant Harishankar Buxi paid rent to her. There was a registered amicably family partition in the family of defendant No.1 in which the suit land fell into the share of one Suresh Kumar Nandy, the younger brother of defendant No.1 and Harishankar Buxi was atoned to him as a tenant. Subsequently, Suresh Kumar Nandy expired while Bachelor and as such, the said property again devolved on her mother Susilabala Nandy as per succession law under Dayabhag School of Hindu Law, which governed their family. Therefore, the said Harishankar Buxi was regularly paying rent to Sushilabala Nandy through his sons Birendra Kumar Nandy and Dhirendra Kumar Nandy, who were looking after the said properties. After death of Harishankar Buxi, his son Artatran Buxi also became a tenant and paid rent to Sushilabala Nandy through her sons. The said Sushilabala Nandy expired in about 1980 after which dissension arose among the brothers and at that time, settlement operation in the locality was going on, but as there was scramble among the brothers for family properties left by Sushilabala Nandy, nobody took interest in the settlement operation. As a result, the plaintiff who had an eye on the suit properties shrewdly recorded the suit properties in his name though he had no right, title or interest over the same. Similarly, the defendant No.2 taking advantage of the dissension in the family of defendant No.1 stopped paying rent. As a result, the plaintiff who had an eye on the suit properties shrewdly recorded the suit properties in his name though he had no right, title or interest over the same. Similarly, the defendant No.2 taking advantage of the dissension in the family of defendant No.1 stopped paying rent. In a partition suit being T.S. No.41 of 1982 filed before the Court of Ist Sub-Judge, Cuttack, a compromise was entered into on which a decree was passed and the suit land was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. Having got the suit property, the defendant No.1 approached the defendant No.2 to pay the arrear and current rent, but the defendant No.2 refused to pay the rent. The defendant No.1 filed H.R.C. Case No.34 of 1988 before the Court of learned House Rent Controller, Cuttack for evicting the defendant No.2 from the Holding No.186 over the suit plot No.399. The defendant No.2 thereafter colluded with the plaintiff and joining hands with him contested the H.R.C. case which went in favour of the defendant No.1 on false and frivolous grounds. An alternate plea was taken by the defendant No.1 that he is in exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted peaceful possession of the suit holding adversely and thus, he has, therefore, acquired title over the suit holding by way of adverse possession. 6.The defendant No.2 in his written statement while supporting the plea of the plaintiff also took a plea of adverse possession. 7.On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as ten issues and recorded evidence both oral and documentary and after hearing the case, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court arrived at the following findings. The defendant No.2 was not in possession of the suit holding adversely to the interest of his landlord. As per 1931 R.O.R., the suit plot bearing No.399 stood recorded in the name of one Parasu Mallik, who sold the suit property to Kanchanmala Panda under Ext.1 dated 3.6.1957 and Kanchanmala Panda in turn under Ext.2 dated 6.6.1977 sold the suit property to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has got title over the suit land corresponding to Hal Plot No.79. The trial Court also found that the suit property is a part of Sabik Plot No.399. Thus, the plaintiff has got title over the suit land corresponding to Hal Plot No.79. The trial Court also found that the suit property is a part of Sabik Plot No.399. and the plaintiff continued to pay the rent for the aforesaid property as well as Plot No.398, which was purchased by him. The trial Court further found that it is not possible to say whether the vendors under Ext.D were recorded owners and it is not pleaded by the defendant No.1 that Stayed Makaram Ali had purchased the suit plot from one G. Kuanr Dei and another who were the original owners of the suit land. It was also finding of the trial Court that by not proving the Kahatian of 1891-1892 Settlement in order to ascertain as to who was the recorded owner and whether the vendor under Ext.D had title to transfer in favour of Makaram Ali disbelieved the said plea of the defendants. The ultimate finding of the trial Court was that the plaintiff has got no right, title and interest over the suit property and even if he has got the same, it has been extinguished by way of adverse possession by the defendant No.1. With regard to the order of eviction passed in H.R.C. case filed by the defendant No.1 against the defendant No.2, the trial Court rightly concluded that the order of eviction passed in the H.R.C. case cannot be a bar for the plaintiff to get any relief in the suit. The trial Court, thus, holding that the defendant No.1 has perfected his title by way of adverse possession over the suit holding, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff thereupon filed Title Appeal No.127 of 1996 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court, therefore, examined as to whether the defendant No.1 has proved the fact of acquiring title by way of adverse possession against the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon filed Title Appeal No.127 of 1996 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court, therefore, examined as to whether the defendant No.1 has proved the fact of acquiring title by way of adverse possession against the plaintiff. Discussing the oral evidence, the lower appellate Court came to the finding that there is absolutely no evidence from the side of the defendants to say, if Makaram Alli is the owner of Plot No.399 and though there is no evidence to show how Holding No.186 was constructed still it is admitted that the defendant No.2 is residing in the suit holding and the said suit holding stands over the suit land which originally belonged to Parasu and subsequent to Kanchanbala, who sold the same to the plaintiff in the year, 1977 and accordingly, R.O.Rs. have been issued in both the settlements in favour of the original owner in 1929 and in the name of the plaintiff in Hal Settlement. It also found lack of evidence to show as to how and when the father of the defendant No.1 acquired the suit holding. It also found that the defendant No.1 has also not admitted the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit holding and hence, the question of his hostile possession to the plaintiff does not arise. Accordingly, the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit. 8.The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (1) If the appellate Court has committed an error of record in observing that the trial Court has held that the plaintiff has title over the suit land. (2) The categorical finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has got no right, title and interest over the suit property not having been set aside, if other findings against the defense plea of adverse possession can result in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff. (3) The appellate Court being the final Court of fact, if the learned Addl.District Judge is correct in not answering all the reasoning advanced by the trial Court in support of its findings. 9.With regard to the first question framed, it would be seen that basing on all the materials which have been recorded, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had title over the suit land. 9.With regard to the first question framed, it would be seen that basing on all the materials which have been recorded, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had title over the suit land. There is no error of record committed by any of the Courts below with regard to the above findings. Therefore, the same being a finding of fact on proper appreciation of evidence, it cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. This Court, therefore, confirms that the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land and thereby his legal heirs have acquired right, title and interest over the suit property. 10.With regard to the second question framed, it is needless to say that finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has got no right, title and interest over the suit property was on the basis of its finding that the defendant No.1 has perfected his title over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession, which has been reversed by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court also on considering the documents produced at once stage came to the finding that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit property. Therefore, this question also cannot be considered to be a substantial question of law. 11.With regard to the third question framed, it is found that the lower appellate Court, in fact, has taken into consideration all the reasons advanced by the trial Court in support of its finding and came to a finding of fact that the defendant No.1 did not perfect his title by way of adverse possession against the plaintiff as the defendant No.1 having not admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit land could not have made out a case of adverse possession moreso when the defendant No.1 himself claimed to have acquired title over the suit property. 12.I therefore, find that none of the questions on which Second Appeal No.250 of 1997 was admitted are substantial questions of law. Both the second appeals, therefore, consider no merit and accordingly, stand dismissed, but, in the circumstances, parties shall bear their respective cost of these second appeal. Appeal dismissed.