Judgment : This second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 10-07-2015 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 22/2013 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 18-12-2012 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 147/2009 whereby the learned court below had decreed the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff while rejecting the counter claim made by the appellants/ defendants. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff/ respondent had purchased a plot of land measuring 0B-2K-0L covered by Dag No. 161 of PP No. 36 of Graham Bazar Ward situated at Graham Bazar Tiniali at Dibrugarh Town by means of a registered deed of sale bearing No. 606/2004 pursuant whereto the possession of the land was also delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also got his name duly mutated in the ‘Jamabandi’ and has been possessing the land by regularly paying the land revenue. There was an ‘L’ shaped katcha house measuring about 340 sq. ft. standing over the plot of land measuring 5L forming a part of the land belonging to the plaintiff. After obtaining mutation in respect of the aforementioned plot of land, the plaintiff had applied for demarcation of the boundary of the land pursuant whereto the Circle Officer, East Revenue Circle had issued demarcation notice upon the house and on 10-11-2004 the demarcation was done. However, one Sri Girindra Kumar Singh @ Bijoy Singh has resisted the demarcation and subsequently filed Title Suit No. 67/2004 against the plaintiff wherein an order of status-quo was also passed by the court below. In December, 2004 the defendant No. 1 had suddenly put a lock in the aforesaid house, which had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 14-04-2005. The plaintiff has made several attempts to convince the defendants to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiff had also issued legal notice. However, instead of vacating the suit premises the defendant had fixed a board on the suit premises in the name of “Dibrugarh New Star Club” on 20-11-2009 with the intension of grabbing the land belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has made several attempts to convince the defendants to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiff had also issued legal notice. However, instead of vacating the suit premises the defendant had fixed a board on the suit premises in the name of “Dibrugarh New Star Club” on 20-11-2009 with the intension of grabbing the land belonging to the plaintiff. Such being the position the plaintiff was compelled to institute the suit praying for a decree declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit premises, recovery of khas possession and for permanent injunction. 3. The defendant contested the suit by filing their written statement whereby, besides questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of want of cause of action etc. the defendants have also denied the averments made in the plaint. The contesting defendants have claimed to have been in possession of the suit premises since more than 30 years and have, therefore, claimed title over the same taking the plea of adverse possession thereby making counter claim to that effect in the suit. 4. The plaintiff had filed the written statement opposing the claim made by the defendant regarding possession over the suit land for 30 years and also repudiated the claim of adverse possession as made by the defendants. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court had framed the following 4 substantial questions of law: 1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff got right, title and interest over the suit premises? 3) Whether the defendants/ counter-claimants are the owners of the suit premises and got adverse possession over the land where on the suit premises is standing? 4) To what relief/ reliefs, the parties are entitled to? 6. During the course of trial both sides have led evidence in the form of documentary and oral evidence. After appreciating the evidence available on record and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties the Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by rejecting the counter claim made by the defendants by the judgment and decree dated 18-12-2012 passed in Title Suit No. 147/2009. 7. After appreciating the evidence available on record and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties the Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by rejecting the counter claim made by the defendants by the judgment and decree dated 18-12-2012 passed in Title Suit No. 147/2009. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-12-2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendants as appellants had preferred Title Appeal No. 22/2013 before the court of learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh which ended in dismissal due to the grounds and reasons mentioned in the judgment and decree dated 10-07-2015. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decision passed by the court below the defendants as appellants are before this Court by filing the instant second appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the basis of a caveat No. 1208/2015. The caveat stands discharged. 9. Mr. Banerjee submits that the court below has committed manifest illegality in failing to consider the fact that the defendant has been in continuous possession of the suit premises since more than 30 years. He submits that the pleadings contained in the counter claim as well as the evidence on record led by the defendants would go to show that the plaintiffs case was clearly barred by the law of adverse possession. 10. Mr. Banerjee, further submits that the plaintiff has already taken the stand during his cross-examination that he does not claim any relief against the defendant No. 2. Such admission made during the cross-examination would constitute a clear waiver and estoppels on the part of the plaintiff in pursuing the remedy against the defendant No. 2. The aforesaid aspect of the matter having been ignored by the court below, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law. 11. Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff has been able to prove and establish his case by leading cogent evidence on record. On the contrary, the defendants have failed to either plead or establish their case on account of plea of adverse possession. 11. Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff has been able to prove and establish his case by leading cogent evidence on record. On the contrary, the defendants have failed to either plead or establish their case on account of plea of adverse possession. Such finding of fact is based on evidence on record, there is no illegality as regards the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the court below. He, further, submits that the “Dibrugarh New Star Club” itself has ceased to exist many years back as per the information available on record. Such being the position the plea taken by the defendants was wholly without any basis and as such has been rightly rejected by the court below. 12. I have considered the rival submission made by and on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record. It appears that the plaintiff has produced the copy of the registered deed of sale bearing No. 606/2004 as Exhibit-1 in support of his claim of title over the suit land. The plaintiff has also produced the copy of mutation as well as the certified copy of ‘Jamabandi’ in the form of Exhibits- 5 & 6 which clearly goes to establish the physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. There is neither any dispute as regards the genuineity of the Exbhit-1 title deed nor have the defendants challenged the veracity of the Exhibits- 5 & 6. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff had succeeded in leading cogent evidence on record to prove and establish his title and possession over the suit land. 13. The defendants, although have claimed to have acquired title over the suit land by means of adverse possession yet, a perusal of the pleadings contained in the written statement-cum-counter claim goes to show that the defendants have failed to lay down the factual foundation in the pleadings indicating with clarity and precision as to from which date their possession has become adverse to the title of the true owner. As a matter of fact the defendants have even failed to indicate as to who is the true owner of the suit land and in what manner the said defendants has possessed the land continuously for more than 12 years with a hostile animus. 14. As a matter of fact the defendants have even failed to indicate as to who is the true owner of the suit land and in what manner the said defendants has possessed the land continuously for more than 12 years with a hostile animus. 14. A scrutiny of the materials on record also goes to indicate that the court below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the defendants have failed to establish their claim of adverse possession by leading evidence on record. Save and except the plea of adverse possession, the defendants could not produce any materials to establish their claim of title over the suit land. The court below have also observed that the defendants have failed to show any link of the land with the Dibrugarh New Star Club which had become non-existent after 1989-90. 15. Coming to the question of alleged concision made by the plaintiff during the cross-examination, the court below has elaborately dealt with the said fact and come to a conclusion that the pleaded stand of the plaintiff as well as the bulk of evidence available on record clearly goes to show that the suit of the plaintiff has been filed seeking relief against both the defendants. As such concision made by the plaintiff during the cross-examination would not have any fatal bearing in the outcome of the suit. I do not find the said conclusion to be perverse in any manner. 16. Having examined the judgment and order rendered by both the courts below as well as the materials available on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no substantial question of law that arises for decision by this Court in the present second appeal. In the result, the second appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and same does not deserve to be admitted based on the substantial question of law formulated by the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently, this second appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to cost.