JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 16.02.2013 delivered in Title Appal No.16/2012 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.5, affirming the finding returned by the judgment dated 08.02.2012 in Title Suit No.20/2010 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. At the time of admitting this appeal for purpose of hearing on merit, the following substantial question of law was formulated : “Whether by the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2013 the first appellate court has returned the finding perversely as regard to the land in dispute as described in the schedule appended to the plaint by not ascertaining whether the land covered by Khatian No.3097 and the land covered by Khatian No.6657 of Mouja-Barjala are same land or not?” 4. Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent, for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession of the suit land as described in the schedule below the plaint. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has emphatically pointed out that in the para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent has pleaded that after purchase of the suit land from the defendant and another plot of land from one Swapan Banik, he caused mutation of the record of rights (ROR) in respect of the said land in his favour under Khatian No.6657. Correspondingly, he has referred to the schedule where the said Khatian No.6657 has been referred. According to him, the plaintiff even did not produce the so called Khatian No.6657 in the evidence. 5. Though initially the defendant-appellants denied the sale of land to the plaintiff, but in the memorandum of appeal filed before the first appellate court, they have admitted that they sold out the land measuring 0.20 acre in favour of the plaintiff vide sale deed No.1-2965 (Exbt.2). By the sale deed, the defendant sold out the land measuring 0.20 acre pertaining to Khatian No.4177, plots No.2472, 2473, 2475, 2476, 2478, 2479 and 2482. Out of those parcels of the land, a piece of land measuring 0.20 acre has been sold to the plaintiff. By the sale deed, the defendant sold out the land measuring 0.20 acre pertaining to Khatian No.4177, plots No.2472, 2473, 2475, 2476, 2478, 2479 and 2482. Out of those parcels of the land, a piece of land measuring 0.20 acre has been sold to the plaintiff. The boundaries, as admitted by the defendant-appellant, of the said land measuring 0.20 acre [as sold out in favour of the of the plaintiff] and as per the sale deed No.1-2965 (Exbt.2) are as under : North Rakhal Ghosh South Rakhal Ghosh East Rakhal Ghosh West Aswini Sarkar 6. The trial court, for returning the finding in favour of the plaintiff, by the judgment dated 08.02.2012 in Title Suit No.20/2010, in the para 7 has observed as under: “Besides this, from Ext.1 the khatian No.3096 I find the land of Sabek plot No.3473 (Part), Hal plot No.3763/9401, which is the suit land, is recorded in the name of the plaintiff as owner and the said khatian is finally published and has presumptive value of correctness unless rebutted because as per sub-section (3) of Section 43 of Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, “every entry in the record of rights as finally published shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be correct.” Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has expressed his anguish that when in the pleading, the Khatian number has been recorded as 6657 for the suit land how the court could return such finding. It was so returned without proper inquiry vis-a-vis the pleadings as placed on record and such finding returned by the trial court is perverse in nature and it cannot be sustained. 7. On the face of such submission, when this court queried Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the appellants, whether that ground of objection was taken in the memorandum of appeal filed before the first appellate court for inquiry into the fact, he could not find any such ground from the memorandum of appeal. Order XLI of the CPC, deals with the appeals from the original decrees/judgments. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the appellants, whether that ground of objection was taken in the memorandum of appeal filed before the first appellate court for inquiry into the fact, he could not find any such ground from the memorandum of appeal. Order XLI of the CPC, deals with the appeals from the original decrees/judgments. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XLI deals with the contents of memorandum in the following terms : “The memorandum shall set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative; and such grounds shall be mubered consecutively.” Rule 2 of Order XLI has further provided about the grounds which may be taken in appeal, as under : “The appellant shall not, except by leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, but the Appellate Court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objections set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Court under this rule : Provided that the Court shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground.” 8. It is admitted position on scrutiny of the impugned judgment that neither that ground was taken nor the court had occasion to go into the said ground for substantive ends of justice as provided in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XLI of the CPC. On the contrary, the appellate court has observed as under : “When the mutation remained unchallenged and the Appellant being silent as to which plot he actually sold out as stated above, necessary presumption is that the land which was mutated in favour of Respondent on the strength of said sale deed was actually sold out by the Appellant to the Respondent. Moreover, there always remains a legal presumption in favour of correctness of the Khatian unless contrary is proved.” 9. It appears that the first appellate court did not even pursuaded to expand the grounds of objection. Moreover, there always remains a legal presumption in favour of correctness of the Khatian unless contrary is proved.” 9. It appears that the first appellate court did not even pursuaded to expand the grounds of objection. Sitting in the second appellate jurisdiction, any ground even to the inquiry of fact is always to be avoided by the court unless it is shown that certain finding on position of fact emanating from the inquiry taken by the trial court or the first appellate court was entirely illegal or unsustainable on the ground of perversity, then of course for a limited purpose that inquiry may be made even in the second appellate stage. 10. Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that it is true that the khatian number as was given inadvertently, was not correct, but the other description of the suit land, such as the plot number, being 3763/9401, corresponding to old plots No.2443, 2473(P) has been correctly provided against Mouja-Ramnagar. In terms of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1961, in one Mouja there cannot be same plot number for any other plot. Apart that, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the physical boundaries are accurately provided and those completely tally with the sale deed (Exbt.2). The first appellate court, therefore, according to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has rightly observed that when the defendant-appellant has sold out his plot proving the physical boundaries, they are estopped from raising any objection as to the title of the plaintiff. Further, the defendant-appellant has admitted that on the basis of the sale deed (Exbt.2), the khatian has been opened in favour of the plaintiff-respondent under No.143096 (Exbt.1). This court is therefore in agreement with Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and as corollary, this court does not find any merit in this appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.