JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M Nath, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal arose out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 67/2013 dated 03.02.2017. The present appellant is the defendant in Title Suit No. 53/2009 filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 is a registered body established in the year 1936 to propagate the Buddhist religion, its philosophy etc. in the society. It has its own constitution for discharging the business of the society. The plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 samity was constituted by a general meeting for a period of 2 years. The priest/monk known as Bhiku was also appointed to look after the religious functions of the Buddha Mandir situated in the premises covering land measuring 3K 9L situated at Graham Bazar ward, Dibrugarh town. It is further contended by the plaintiffs/respondents that the Purbanchal Bhikku Sangha at Margherita having its affiliation under All India Bhikku Sangha recommended the name of the defendant/appellant. On such recommendation, the plaintiff committee appointed the defendant/appellant as the priest of the Buddha Mandir run by the plaintiff Committee. It was contended that the defendant/ appellant used to act as sole supervisor of the entire Samity and misused the property of the Samity and some illegal activities inside the Buddha Mandir was committed by him. The Committee was constituted by the general meeting dated 12.09.2008 by electing Sri Sunil Kumar Baruah and Sri Ujjal Baruah as its President and Secretary respectively and asking the defendant/ appellant to hand over all the proceeding books and accounts of the Samity which he refused to hand over. The defendant/appellant with his manpower obstructed the members of the plaintiff Committee to enter into the Buddha Mandir. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiffs/respondents filed the suit praying for declaration that the Committee constituted on 12.09.2008 headed by Sri Sunil Kumar Baruah and Sri Ujjal Baruah as its President and Secretary respectively is the genuine one and for a direction to the defendant/ appellant to hand over the proceeding books and accounts of the Samity to the newly constituted Committee as well as perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering the activities of the plaintiffs/Samity in any manner. 3. 3. The defendant/appellant through his written statement denied the contentions made by the plaintiffs/respondents. It is the defence taken by the defendant/ appellant that since the day of its inception, the management of the Dibrugarh Buddha Samity has been appointing a high priest with the approval of All Assam Vikkhu Sangha and not by the Purbanchal Vikku Samity. It is further contended that the Secretary, Sri Ujjal Baruah in collusion with 9 (nine) other Ex-officials of the Samity had been trying to dispossess the defendant/ appellant for fulfilment of their mala fide intention which they failed to do so. The plaintiffs/respondents published certain defamatory statements in the local daily against which the defendant/appellant has preferred a criminal petition. The officials of the earlier committee forcibly took away the official papers and as such, there is denial on the part of the defendant/appellant with respect to the plea that he has taken the papers of the Committee. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 8 (eight) issues which are quoted below:- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and in facts? 2. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the Managing Committee of the plaintiff headed by Sri Sunil Kumar Baruah anad Sri Ujjal Baruah was duly constituted? 4. If so, whether the defendants and their men are not bound to deliver the possession of the office premises, Library, Accounts etc. to the Committee? 5. Whether the appointment of the monk of the mandir was made with the forwarding of Purbanchal Vikkhu Sangha or that of All Assam Vikkhu Sangha? 6. Whether the defendant No. 1 has any right to act as a monk of the mandir? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for? 8. To what relief/s the parties are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case? 5. The learned trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2013. Against the said judgment and decree, Title Appeal No. 67/2013 was preferred by the defendant/appellant in the court of learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh. The said title appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2017. Thereafter, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant. 6. Mr. Against the said judgment and decree, Title Appeal No. 67/2013 was preferred by the defendant/appellant in the court of learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh. The said title appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2017. Thereafter, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant. 6. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the relief sought for by the plaintiffs/respondents, under no circumstances, could be granted, inasmuch as, the relief of permanent injunction cannot be considered at all. As per the constitution, Article 14(D) of the Samity, the term for a Samity is for a period of 2 years. In such a situation, granting of relief for perpetual injunction would amount to violation of the said clause of the constitution which is still governing the management of the Buddha Mandir. Accordingly, Mr. Purkayastha submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is liable to be set aside only for the said ground. 7. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the submissions of Mr. Purkayastha, submits that though the Committee was elected during the pendency of the suit but the same could not function owing to various orders passed by the courts below during its tenure. As against the relief of permanent injunction, Mr. Nath submits that though the term ‘perpetual injunction’ has been mentioned in the plaint but it is needless to mention that the same would remain valid till the expiry of the term of the said Committee which was elected duly and constitutionally. It is further submitted and clarified by Mr. Nath that the plaintiffs/respondents have not challenged any of the provisions of the constitution rather, the plaintiffs/respondents are enforcing the provisions stipulated in the constitution whereby the authority is given to the Committee to manage the Buddha Mandir. Thus, Mr. Nath submits that the issue raised by Mr. Purkayastha cannot at all be entertained by this court, inasmuch as, the same is beyond the pleadings of the appellant/ defendant. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below. The learned first appellate court has examined the findings given by the learned trial court issue wise. Purkayastha cannot at all be entertained by this court, inasmuch as, the same is beyond the pleadings of the appellant/ defendant. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below. The learned first appellate court has examined the findings given by the learned trial court issue wise. With respect to the finding of Issue No. 2, the learned first appellate court had entered into the material piece of evidence on record and rightly upheld the finding of the learned trial court. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of the suit as per the direction of the learned trial court vide order dated 19.10.2009, a new committee was formed. The said direction of the learned trial court was challenged by the defendant/appellant and finally, this court vide order dated 29.04.2011 in CRP No. 137/2011 upheld the said direction of the learned trial court. As on date, the said Committee is still in existence as submitted by Mr. Nath. Finally, the learned first appellate court held that the Committee which was formed as per the direction of the learned trial court, suffers no constitutional irregularity and upheld the findings of issues No. 3 and 4 of the learned trial court. 9. After holding the findings of issues No. 3 and 4 to be correct, the learned first appellate court accordingly, decided issues No. 7 and 8 in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents. From the submissions of both the learned counsels and on perusal of the judgments, it is clear that the findings of both the learned courts below are as per the issues evolved out of the pleadings of the parties to the suit. The said issues arose on the basis of the pleadings and on the basis of a particular cause of action with respect to the said suit. At this point, Mr. Purkayastha submits that whether the term of the existing committee would be extended beyond the period prescribed by the constitution. This submission cannot be considered by this court, as second appellate court, inasmuch as, this court is confined to the findings given by the learned courts below and on the basis of the said concluding facts the decisions arrived at by the learned courts below are correct or not. This submission cannot be considered by this court, as second appellate court, inasmuch as, this court is confined to the findings given by the learned courts below and on the basis of the said concluding facts the decisions arrived at by the learned courts below are correct or not. If not, whether there is any substantial question of law involved in the said findings and the answer to the said substantial question of law would have a substantial bearing on the rights of the parties to the suit. Keeping that in view, this court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal stands dismissed.