JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment & decree dated 29.11.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Title Appeal No. 03 of 1993 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 08.01.1993 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 18/86. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 08.01.2003 on the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned court below misread the evidence of PW4 in concluding that the defendant was a trespasser on the suit land and that the plaintiff had right, title and interest therein, thus vitiating the impugned judgment and order by an error on a substantial question of law? 2. The pleaded case in the plaint is that the respondent/plaintiff is a limited liability company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and it has a number of tea estates in Assam and it owns and manages, amongst others, Dehing Tea Estate at Margherita. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit premises described in the schedule and the same was allotted as an incidence of employment to a permanent worker named Smti Nandi Gore, wife of one Rajesh Gore, who is the elder brother of the defendant. In the month of December, 1981, the defendant, who is not a worker of Dehing Tea Estate, forcibly dispossessed her and started occupying the same unauthorisedly and thus, he had become a trespasser. Despite being asked several times to vacate the suit premises, the defendant did not do so. Though the defendant being a trespasser was otherwise not entitled to a notice, a legal notice dated 09.10.1985 was served on the defendant asking him to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the suit premises immediately on expiry of 31st October, 1985. As defendant did not vacate the suit premises, the suit was filed praying for, amongst others, a decree for khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant with all his belongings and dependants, if any, from the suit premises described in the schedule. 3. The schedule of suit premises reads as follows: A double unit Labour Quarter having brick walls, asbestos roof, wooden doors and windows comprising a plinth area of 956 sq. ft. 3. The schedule of suit premises reads as follows: A double unit Labour Quarter having brick walls, asbestos roof, wooden doors and windows comprising a plinth area of 956 sq. ft. situated on a part of the plot of land measuring 6B-0K-5L approximately of Dehing Tea Estate covered by Dag No. 59 (New) 62 (old) (part) corresponding to Tea Periodic Patta No. 1 W.L. App. No. 75 (Village) in Mouza Makum, Tinsukia Sub-Division, District-Dibrugarh and bounded on the - North-By PWD Road. South-By Pathar East-By Pathar & N.F. Rly West-By Labour Quarter of Dehing T.E. 4. In the written statement filed, the defendant stated that neither the plaintiff nor Smti Nandi Gore ever possessed the suit premises and both the allegation of forceful dispossession and unauthorised occupation are out and out false statements. He was not served with a legal notice. It is pleaded that in the year 1918, his grandfather Jhulan Gore and his father Haralal Gore, who hailed from Madhya Pradesh, settled themselves along with other family members at Margherita near Dehing Tea Estate by clearing jungles and trees in an area of land measuring about 200-250 Bighas. Initially kutcha houses were raised for residential purpose and the rest of the land came to be cultivated. The area, in course of time, became famous as Jhulan Basti and the defendant is residing along with his family members in the said land. It is also stated that land measuring 9 Bighas covered by Dag Nos. 258 and 259 corresponding to old Dag No. 104(A) was possessed by the defendant since the time his father constructed a pucca house thereon in the year 1955. The said plot of land was allotted to the defendant by Government of Assam vide land distribution certificate being No. 70856 dated 08.05.1976. It is also asserted that plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the land and the house is owned and possessed by the defendant. 5. An additional written statement was also field by the defendant stating that the 9 Bighas of land under his occupation is in Dag No. 104 (ka) of Periodic Patta No. 1 corresponding to new dag No. 59/258 measuring 6 Bighas 1 Katha and Dag No. 32/259 measuring 2 Bighas 4 Kathas and as the defendant was found to be in possession on due verification and enquiry, the said land was allotted to him. It was further stated that the house referred to in the schedule of the plaint was constructed by the father of the defendant on the plot of land measuring 6 Bighas 1 Katha covered by Old Dag No. 104 (ka) corresponding to Periodic Patta No. 1 comprised in Dag No. 59/258. The boundary of the land is also given which is identical to the boundary given by the plaintiff in the schedule to the plaint. 6. On the basis of pleadings, number of issues and additional issues were framed. Having regard to the substantial question of law formulated, Issue nos. 4 and 5 are relevant and they are as follows: Issue No. 4 - Whether the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land? Issue No. 5 - Whether the defendant is trespasser into the suit premises? 7. During trial, plaintiff examined 4 (four) witnesses and the defendant examined 2 (two) witnesses including himself. PW1 is the Manager of the Tea Estate, PW2 is Smti Nandi Gore, PW3 is a Surveyor who surveyed the area of Dehing Tea Estate where labour quarters are located and PW4 is the Lat Mandal (Revenue Staff). 8. The learned trial court found that in Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1 there was Bari land of 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas and the said portion was retained by the Tea Estate and the balance area measuring 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas in Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1, being ceiling surplus land, was acquired by the Government. It was also recorded by learned trial court that allotment of land was made to defendant from Dag No. 258/259 and the suit premises is situated over the plot of land covered by Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1. On the basis of Ext. 12, a draft Chitha, it was held that defendant is owner of 6 Bighas 1 Katha out of Dag No. 59/258 and 2 Bighas 3 Kathas 1 Lecha out of Dag No. 32/259 covered by Periodic Patta No. 1. Accordingly, issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of Ext. 11, a site map exhibited by PW3, Ext. Accordingly, issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of Ext. 11, a site map exhibited by PW3, Ext. 10, an allotment letter of the suit premises, and the evidence on record, the learned trial court decided Issue No. 5 by holding the defendant to be a trespasser. 9. The learned lower appellate court noted that Dag No. 59 originally contained a stretch of land measuring 61 Bighas 10 Lechas belonging to the Tea Estate and 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas were surrendered to the Government of Assam by the plaintiff being ceiling surplus land and it retained 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas. As per order of the Sub-divisional Officer dated 31.03.1996, Dag No. 258 corresponding to Old Dag No. 59 and Dag No. 259 corresponding to Old Dag No. 32 were converted to Periodic Patta No. 1 in the name of the defendant. On the basis of evidence of PW4, learned lower appellate court held that suit premises was in the un-surrendered part of Dag No. 59 and not in Dag Nos. 258, 259 allotted to the defendant. On consideration of evidence on record, the learned lower appellate court also recorded a finding that the defendant was a trespasser. Accordingly, Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. 10. Mr. R.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ceiling surplus land was allotted to the persons in occupation. The defendant was in occupation of the suit premises since 1955 and the learned courts below, on a perverse appreciation of evidence of PW4, came to a finding that the suit premises was not in the allotted land of the defendant. It is submitted that the learned courts below had omitted to take note of certain portions of the evidence of PW4 and to buttress his submission, he has read the entire evidence of PW4 highlighting the portions which according to him were not taken note of. According to him, evidence of PW4 establishes beyond any doubt that the suit premises is located in his allotted land and therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees, being perverse, are liable to be interfered with. 11. Mr. According to him, evidence of PW4 establishes beyond any doubt that the suit premises is located in his allotted land and therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees, being perverse, are liable to be interfered with. 11. Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that that the respondent/plaintiff was originally having right, title and interest in respect of 61 Bighas 10 Lechas in Dag No. 59 in Tea Periodic Patta No. 1 is not at all in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff retained 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land and surrendered 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land. There is no dispute with regard to right, title and interest in respect of 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land. He has submitted that the only issue is whether the suit premises is within 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of land or is in the land allotted to the appellant/defendant out of the land surrendered by the respondent/plaintiff. Both the courts below have concurrently held that suit premises is within the un-surrendered portion of land retained by the plaintiff and therefore, the aforesaid concurrent finding of fact calls for no interference. The learned counsel goes on to submit that there is no perverse appreciation of evidence of PW4. The learned counsel further submits that there was no explanation as to how land could be allotted vide Ext. (ka) dated 08.05.1976 when the order was made on 13.08.1976. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter lies in a narrow campus and this Court is only required to see whether the plea of perversity as raised by the appellant is sustainable. 13. In Dinesh Kumar Vs. Yusuf Ali, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 740 , the Apex Court laid down that though under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal is maintainable on a substantial question of law and not on facts, there is no prohibition to entertain a second appeal even on question of facts provided the court is satisfied that the findings of the courts below were vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by an erroneous approach to the matter. 14. 14. Translated version of the evidence recorded was made available to the Court by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Yadav had drawn my attention to certain portions of the evidence of PW4 to drive home his point regarding perversity. It will be helpful to reproduce the said portions of evidence of PW4, which is as follows: ... Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1 (Mauza Makum), earlier contained 61 Bighas 10 Lechas of land. All the aforementioned land of Dehing Tea Estate of Makum Tea Company India Ltd. of this land 39 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas remained in the name of the company and the rest 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas became ceiling sarkari land. The aforementioned 21 Bighas 2 Kathas 15 Lechas of ceiling land became different Dags and the numbers are 258, 261, 263, 264, 266 and 574. The order of ceiling was made on 13.08.76.... I measured the aforesaid land. We took over the ceiling land which made sarkari. The land which remained in the name of the tea company contains company quarters and tea (bushes). A part of Dag No. 59 is under occupation of one Bhola Gore and he has his house and Basti on it. I do not know whether there is anybody else in that land. The house where Bhola Gore lives looks like/resembles company quarter. I allotted the ceiling surplus land to the people under whose possession land was and allotted land in Dag Nos. 258 and 259 in the name of Bhola Gore. The land of dag No. 259 is the same land of Dag No. 32 (old) falling in the same patta.... 15. It is relevant to note that PW4 had further stated on the basis of Ext. 13 that boundary of Dag No. 59 contains 39 Bighas 2 Kathas and 15 Lechas of land and the ceiling surplus land was shown in Dag Nos. 258, 261, 263, 264, 266 and 574. In cross-examination, PW4 had denied the suggestion that the disputed land did not fall in Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1. He had also denied the suggestion that the disputed house fell in the 21 Bighas 2 Kathas and 15 Lechas of ceiling surplus land. From the portion of the evidence relied upon by Mr. In cross-examination, PW4 had denied the suggestion that the disputed land did not fall in Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1. He had also denied the suggestion that the disputed house fell in the 21 Bighas 2 Kathas and 15 Lechas of ceiling surplus land. From the portion of the evidence relied upon by Mr. Yadav, which is quoted above, it does not follow that the defendant was allotted land including the disputed building. What is clear from the evidence is that people were allotted ceiling surplus land who had possession therein. It is impermissible to draw an inference as Mr. Yadav would like this Court to draw that because of reference to Dag No. 59 in which defendant was also found to be in occupation, such land with the building was the land allotted to the defendant. The factum of possession is secondary. More important is the identification of the ceiling surplus land. The picture that emerges is that the disputed land is in Dag No. 59. PW4 did not say that the disputed land ultimately formed a part of Dag No. 258. Even after some part of Dag No. 59 was converted to Dag No. 258, there was still a sizable chunk of land in Dag No. 59 of Tea Periodic Patta No. 1. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that plea of perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence of PW4 has no merit. 16. The evidence on record shows that the father of the defendant was a worker of the Tea Estate. The defendant, while examining himself as DW1, had stated that his father had constructed the house in the year 1955 but he never lived there. DW1 had also stated that he was born in the disputed house. He has further stated that he used to live in the house with his wife and other family members. From his own evidence, it appears that he was born sometime in 1946 as he had stated that in cross-examination recorded on 03.08.1991, he was about 45 years old. Therefore, his plea that he was born in that house cannot be accepted. It is on record that father of the defendant retired in the year 1973 and expired in the year 1984. 17. Therefore, his plea that he was born in that house cannot be accepted. It is on record that father of the defendant retired in the year 1973 and expired in the year 1984. 17. Evidence of witnesses of plaintiff discloses that father of the defendant was allotted the quarter which is the disputed house. Subsequently, the quarter was allotted to Rajesh, who is husband of PW2. After he had resigned from the services of the Tea Estate, the quarter was allotted to PW2. DW1 had also deposed that Rajesh and Nandi had separated after about 3 years of marriage. There is also evidence that all of them used to reside together in that disputed house and that the defendant forcefully evicted PW2 from the quarter. 18. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this Second Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. Send back the LCRs. Appeal dismissed.