JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The plaintiffs who were the respondents in the learned court below have filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 29.08.2009 in Title Appeal No. 35 of 1993, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Koderma whereby and whereunder, the learned lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs which was decreed by the learned trial court vide Title Suit No. 69 of 1988. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 6 are the common descendants of one Tulsi Choudhary. Sonu Choudhary was one of the son of Tulsi Choudhary. Sonu Choudhary had two sons namely Gobardhan Choudhary and Gopal Choudhary. The plaintiff no.1 is the son of Gobardhan Choudhary and the plaintiff no.2 is the wife of plaintiff no.1. The defendant nos. 1 to 6 are the descendants of Gopal Choudhary. The admitted case of both the parties to this case is as follows:- (a) The plaintiff no.1 and the defendants 1 to 10 are the descendants of the common ancestor Tulsi Choudhary. (b) The disputed old Khata nos. 25 and 167 were recorded as “Gair majrua khas” land in C.S. record of right in the name of Gobardhan Choudhary (ancestor of plaintiff no.1 now deceased). (c) Disputed old khata no. 171 was “Bakast Malik” land stood recorded in the name of Gobardhan Choudhary and Gopal Choudhary in C.S. record of right. (d) The disputed old khata no. 166 was the “Bakast Malik” land of said Gobardhan Choudhary in the C.S. record of right. (e) The disputed old khata nos. 6 and 214 were the “Raiyati” lands of Gobardhan Choudhary and Gopal Choudhary, sons of Sonu Choudhary. (f) The disputed old khata no. 56 was also the “Raiyati” lands in the name of Gobardhan Choudhary and Gopal Choudhary, sons of Sonu Choudhary, Jitan Choudhary, son of Tulsi Choudhary and Anup Choudhary, son of Sodhu Choudhary in the C.S. khaityan. (g) The oral partition was effected to long ago amongst Gobardhan Choudhary, Gopal Choudhary, Jitan Choudhary and Anup Choudhary by metes and bounds. 56 was also the “Raiyati” lands in the name of Gobardhan Choudhary and Gopal Choudhary, sons of Sonu Choudhary, Jitan Choudhary, son of Tulsi Choudhary and Anup Choudhary, son of Sodhu Choudhary in the C.S. khaityan. (g) The oral partition was effected to long ago amongst Gobardhan Choudhary, Gopal Choudhary, Jitan Choudhary and Anup Choudhary by metes and bounds. (h) After the oral partition by metes and bounds the above named coparceners to the partition came and continued in separate and exclusive possession of the land of their share allotted to them in the said oral family partition. 4. The dispute between the parties is that though the plaintiff claims that the suit lands were allotted to the share of Gobardhan Choudhary- the ancestor of plaintiff no. 1 but the same is denied by the defendants. 5. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title upon the suit land and confirmation of possession and if found dispossessed, restoration of the possession of the suit land after evicting the defendants therefrom. The plaintiffs also prayed that the revisional survey entry with respect to the suit land be declared wrong and erroneous and not binding upon the plaintiffs and thirdly the plaintiffs also prayed that the sale deed executed by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and 7 in favour of the defendant no.11 and also by the defendant no. 1 to 3 in favour of the defendant nos. 12 to 14 and 7 in respect of the Schedule D and C land of the plaint respectively be declared illegal, null and void and of no legal consequences and also not binding upon the plaintiffs. It is pertinent to mention here that the State or any of its Officers were not arrayed as party to the suit. 6. The learned trial court basing upon the pleadings of the parties framed ten issues. The main issue being issue no.5- Have the plaintiffs got valid right, title over the suit land? Both the parties adduced their evidences. The learned Munsif, Koderma, after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the record held that the plaintiffs have got valid right and title over the suit land and decreed the suit. 7. The main issue being issue no.5- Have the plaintiffs got valid right, title over the suit land? Both the parties adduced their evidences. The learned Munsif, Koderma, after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the record held that the plaintiffs have got valid right and title over the suit land and decreed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 08.04.1993 passed by the Munsif, Koderma, in Title Suit No.69 of 1988, the defendants of the suit filed an appeal in the court of Principle District Judge, Koderma and the same was registered as Title Appeal No.35 of 1993 and ultimately the same was heard and decided by the Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Koderma. Learned lower appellate court below after independent appreciation of evidence in the record came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title and possession over the suit land and the learned trial court has wrongly decreed the suit and the learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.04.1993 passed by the Munsif, Koderma. 8. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned lower appellate court passed the impugned judgment and decree against the weight of evidence in the record and the learned lower appellate court could not appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned lower appellate court did not give any specific finding regarding the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned lower appellate court did not give any specific finding regarding the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and careful perusal of the record, I find that the learned lower appellate court has thoroughly scrutinized the evidence in record and made threadbare discussion of the evidence both, oral and documentary put forth by the rival parties and after considering the fact that the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs on the point of partition were not trustworthy and that the plaintiffs failed to file any document of title in respect of the suit property and also the fact that though the plaintiffs earlier filed petition under Sections 90 and 83 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act but did not take any step for correction of the record of right which stands recorded in the name of the ancestors of the defendant nos.1 to 6 though, he was very much aware about such entries and also considering the documentary evidence filed on behalf of defendants regarding their possession of the suit property came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to rebut the presumption of possession in favour of the defendants created by the entry in the name of the ancestors of the defendant nos.1 to 6 in the record of rights and also considering the fact that the suit is barred by limitation as the entries made in the record of right was in the year 1966 and the plaintiffs were very much aware about the same but for the first time, they filed the suit in the year 1988, held that the suit is barred by limitation and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 10. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme of India, in paragraph -10 of the case of Gurvachan Kaur and Others vs. Salikram (dead) through LRS., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 530 as under:- "10. It is settled law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse. This being the position, it must be held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court on the issues of existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and default committed by the latter in payment of rent." (Emphasis Supplied). 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered. The learned Counsel for the appellant also could not point out any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 12. Thus there being no merit, this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs.