JUDGMENT D.N. UPADHYAY, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4th August, 2005 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Pakur in connection with Title Appeal No. 3 of 2004, whereby judgment dated 12th December, 2003 and decree dated 22nd December, 2003, passed and signed by Sub Judge-I, Pakur in connection with Title Suit No. 21 of 1984 has been upheld. 2. Plaintiff Fazal Sheikh was the appellant in the present appeal, who has been substituted by his legal heirs and successors by order dated 11th July, 2011. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that by virtue of registered sale deed (Deed No. 3030 dated 5th October, 1978) executed by original Defendant No. 4 Ashutosh Singh, the plaintiff purchased suit property, area measuring 7 Kathas 7 Dhures out of Plot No. 460 (eastern side) and 01 Bigha 11 Dhures out of Plot No. 464/1178. In due course, some litigation cropped up between the parties. The plaintiff realized inadvertent mistake occurred in the sale deed and, therefore, a deed of rectification dated 30th April, 1984 was again executed by original Defendant No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff. It is further averred in the plaint that Radha Pyari Devi, mother of Defendant No. 4 was having right, title, interest and possession over the suit property as also against other properties falling within other villages to that vicinity. Radha Pyari Devi was having two sons, namely, Keshav Prasad Singh and Ashutosh Singh. Since Keshav Prasad Singh died, another brother Ashutosh Singh had inherited the property and acquired absolute right, title, interest and possession over the same. It is further contended that Defendant No. 4 had sold the property fallen in his share to the plaintiff for valuable consideration and executed valid sale deed and also put the plaintiff in possession over the suit property. 4. The case of the respondent/contesting defendant first party is that the suit property, pertaining to 7 Kathas and 7 Dhurs out of Plot no. 460 was purchased by their father Surendra Nath Mandal from original raiyat Radha Pyari Devi for a consideration amount of Rs.98/. Since the value of the land was below Rs.100/- it was not necessary to get the sale deed registered. They have further made out a case that since 1959-60 they have been in cultivating possession over the suit property. 460 was purchased by their father Surendra Nath Mandal from original raiyat Radha Pyari Devi for a consideration amount of Rs.98/. Since the value of the land was below Rs.100/- it was not necessary to get the sale deed registered. They have further made out a case that since 1959-60 they have been in cultivating possession over the suit property. So far the land, area measuring one Bigha 11 Dhures, pertaining to Plot No. 464/1178, is concerned, it was purchased by the defendants by virtue of a sale deed registered in the year 1964 (Ext. A/2) and since then they have been exercising their rightful title, interest and possession. Further case of the contesting defendant in the court below is that Ashutosh Singh had not inherited the entire property of Radha Pyari Devi because she was having two sons and six daughters. Her deceased son Keshav Prasad Singh had left behind his widow and three sons. The plaintiff has not brought on record any partition held between the legal heirs of Radha Pyari Devi after her death. It is also not disclosed in the plaint as to how and when and by virtue of what document Ashutosh Singh had acquired the suit property alleged to have fallen in his share. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that findings of both the courts below are perverse and they have not considered the documents and evidences available on record. It is evident from the judgments of both the courts below that the issues involved have been decided merely on the basis of possession which the parties were alleged to have acquired because the deed produced by both the parties is not very much clear with regard to plot numbers mentioned therein. The courts have not considered the deed of rectification of the appellant and, therefore, the findings of both the courts below are perverse and the Lower Appellate Court has repeated the findings of the Trial Court in verbatim in the judgment impugned. 6. I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below from which it appears that both the courts below have given concurrent findings on the basis of documents and evidences adduced by the parties. Whatever the evidences produced before the courts below either by way of oral or documentary, have been considered. 6. I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below from which it appears that both the courts below have given concurrent findings on the basis of documents and evidences adduced by the parties. Whatever the evidences produced before the courts below either by way of oral or documentary, have been considered. The consistent case of the defendants/respondents was that they had been exercising their possession over the suit land from the lifetime of Radha Pyari Devi, whose title has not been disputed by any of the parties. It was contended that the Courts have gone to the extent of holding that the defendants acquired adverse possession over the suit land, though no issue was framed. In this context, I would like to observe that issue of adverse possession was not at all involved and the findings of the courts below are not exactly based on principle of adverse possession, rather the courts were independent to bring it on record. Since the lifetime of Radha Pyari Devi the defendants have been exercising cultivable possession over the suit land and, therefore, a sentence has been constructed in the judgment that the plaintiff has acquired even adverse possession. The consistent plea of the defendants/respondents is that they have been enjoying their peaceful possession over the suit land after its purchase from rightful owner whereas the plaintiff has been claiming his right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of a sale deed executed by one of the legal heirs of Radha Pyari Devi. Therefore, the point which is lacking on the part of the plaintiff/appellant is that the suit framed by him does appear to be proper and it was not made clear as to how vendor of the plaintiff has acquired absolute right, title, interest and possession over the suit property to transfer the same. This point was well pleaded in written statement of the defendants, whereas the plaint is silent in respect of other legal heirs of Late Radha Pyari Devi and they have not been made parties. 7. Since the case of the plaintiff/appellant is totally based on facts, I do not find any substantial question on the point of law to be decided in this second appeal. 8. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.