JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below, has filed the instant regular second appeal. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the allegations that the suit land comprised in Khata No.184, Khatauni No.404, Khasra Nos. 257 & 258, kitas-2, measuring 0-30-48 hectares, situate in Mohal and Mauza Haar Daroh, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is fully owned and possessed by him and despite the defendant having no right, title and interest in the suit land, he is interfering with the same. 3. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, locus standi, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, were taken. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, rather it was averred that it is the defendant, who in fact is in actual and physical possession of the suit land and the existing revenue entries are merely paper entries and are against the actual and factual position existing on the spot. It was averred that the defendant is in possession of the suit property since the time of his forefathers. However, half share contained in Khasra No.50 which was assigned new Khasra No.258 during settlement was under mortgage with Devi Singh and Piar Singh sons of Rijhu and the same had been redeemed by him in the year 1991-92 after payment of the mortgage money. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land in any capacity and the entries in the revenue records showing him as a tenant had been incorporated illegally and unauthorizedly in collusion with the settlement field staff during current settlement. It was further averred that there was no conferment of right, title and interest upon the plaintiff and, therefore, these entries are required to be declared null and void. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. (2) Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. (2) Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD. (3) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. (4) Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. (5) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD. (6) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. (7) Whether the revenue entries qua the suit land are wrong, illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside as alleged? OPD. (8) Relief.” 5. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and evaluating the same dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on 23.03.2009 and the appeal filed by the plaintiff against such judgment and decree also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court on 30.06.2017. 6. Undeterred, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal merely on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and are, therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. At the outset, it needs to be observed that concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the first appellate Court cannot be reopened in second appeal in absence of perversity. What would be substantial question of law has been lucidly dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi (dead) by Legal Representatives and another (2016) 10 SCC 315 , wherein it was held as under: “24. The scope of Section 100 of CPC while deciding the second appeal by the High Court has been the subject matter of several decisions of this Court and thus remains no more res integra. A reference to the two cases on this question would suffice. 25. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 speaking through R.C. Lahoti J (as His Lordship then was) examined the scope of Section 100 of CPC in detail and laid down the following propositions in paras 9, 10, 12 and 14 as under: (SCC p. 185-88) “9. A three-judge Bench of this Court in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 speaking through R.C. Lahoti J (as His Lordship then was) examined the scope of Section 100 of CPC in detail and laid down the following propositions in paras 9, 10, 12 and 14 as under: (SCC p. 185-88) “9. The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. (See Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438 , Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997) 4 SCC 413 and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722 ). 10. At the very outset we may point out that the memo of second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the High Court suffered from a serious infirmity. Section 100 of the Code, as amended in 1976, restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear a second appeal only on “substantial question of law involved in the case”. An obligation is cast on the appellant to precisely state in the memorandum of appeal the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and which the appellant proposes to urge before the High Court. The High Court must be satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in the case and such question has then to be formulated by the High Court. Such questions or question may be the one proposed by the appellant or may be any other question which though not proposed by the appellant yet in the opinion of the High Court arises as involved in the case and is substantial in nature. At the hearing of the appeal, the scope of hearing is circumscribed by the question so formulated by the High Court. At the hearing of the appeal, the scope of hearing is circumscribed by the question so formulated by the High Court. The respondent is at liberty to show that the question formulated by the High Court was not involved in the case In spite of a substantial question of law determining the scope of hearing of second appeal having been formulated by the High Court, its power to hear the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not earlier formulated by it, is not taken away subject to the twin conditions being satisfied: (i) the High Court feels satisfied that the case involves such question, and (ii) the High Court records reasons for its such satisfaction. * * * 12. The phrase “substantial question of law”, as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying “question of law”, means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta ( AIR 1928 PC 172 ), the phrase “substantial question of law” as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.( AIR 1962 SC 1314 ) the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju ( AIR 1951 Mad 969 ): (Chunilal V. Mehta case, AIR p.1318, para 5) ‘5….When a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular facts of the case it would not be a substantial question of law.’ And laid down the following test as proper test, for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial: (AIR p. 1318, para 6) ‘6…..The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.’ * * * 14. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be “substantial” a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law “involving in the case” there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis”. 26. Again in the case of Thiagarajan And Others vs. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil And Others reported in 2004 (5) SCC 762 , a two Judge Bench of this Court in paras 17, 24, 25 and 26 observed as under: (SCC pp. 768 & 771 -72) “17. Sub-section (5) of Section 100 CPC says that the appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall at the hearing of the appeal be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such a question. The proviso states that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. The proviso states that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. In the instant case, the High Court at the time of final hearing formulated five more questions of law as extracted above after hearing the counsel for both sides having miserably failed to record the reasons for formulating the other substantial questions of law. * * * 24. In our opinion, the High Court has erred in holding that the appellants have failed to establish their title to the suit property evidently without appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective by making only reference to portions of evidence having once decided to reappreciate the evidence. The High Court, in our opinion, ought to have examined the entire evidence both oral and documentary instead of only a portion thereof especially while deciding to look into and reappreciate the evidence despite the limited scope under Section 100 CPC. In our view, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing, reappreciating and making a roving enquiry by entering into the factual arena of the case which is not the one contemplated under the limited scope of jurisdiction of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 25. In the present case, the lower appellate court fairly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the appellants’ suit was to be decreed and that the appellants are entitled to the relief as prayed for. Even assuming that another view is possible on a reappreciation of the same evidence, that should not have been done by the High Court as it cannot be said that the view taken by the first appellate court was based on no material. 26. To say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the courts of law to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding the same. 26. To say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the courts of law to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding the same. This Court in a catena of decisions held that where findings of fact by the lower appellate court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on reappreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible”. 27. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand and keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law in mind, we find that the High Court while admitting the second appeal had formulated the following questions: “(1) Whether the finding of the Court below, that the suit site on O.S.No.53/93 in S.No.35/5, Ex.C.I AI and the leased site, surrendered by P.W.6 in S.No.35/5 CI A 19 arc one and the same, is vitiated by its failure to consider the admissions of D.W.I and the relevant documentary evidence, which establish that there was a sub-division of S.No.35/5, the suit site is S.No.35/5, CI Ex.A.I being a Government poramboke land and the site of the defendant classified as a “Darga Burial Ground Mosque”, each distinct and different from the other? Admissions of D.W.I: 2. Whether the Court below have failed to see that Ex.A.2 (Gift deed being a thirty year old document, the presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act applies, both with regard to execution and attestation, and as such the opinion of the trial Court that it is suspicious document, is untenable and unsustainable in law? 3. Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in not framing proper points for consideration, on the validity of Ex.A.2 gift deed and the sub- division of suit property S.No.35/5 C1A1, as required under Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. and as such the Judgment of the lower appellate Court as a final Court of fact is vitiated by errors of law? 4. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in law, in holding that Ex.A2 gift deed is invalid, because the property gifted is poramboke, when the Government itself (second defendant) has not disputed either the long possession or possessory title of the plaintiff of the suit property? 5. 4. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in law, in holding that Ex.A2 gift deed is invalid, because the property gifted is poramboke, when the Government itself (second defendant) has not disputed either the long possession or possessory title of the plaintiff of the suit property? 5. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in law on the question of title, merely by adverting to Ex.A.3, Ex.A.4, Ex.A.5 – tax receipts, and the entire reasoning is based on mere guess work ignoring the relevant and clinching documentary evidence? 6. Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that P.W.6 (plaintiff’s son) did not vacate the site even after the lease period of the site S.No.35/5 C1A19 of D.I is not based on any evidence except the word of D.W.2 (no witnesses was examined) and the conclusion reached by it that the suit site in O.S.No.53/93 and the leased site are the same, is contrary to the evidence on record? 7. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in law in its failure to consider the admission of D.W.2 himself that his father encroached into the plaintiff’s site and was issued B-Memos and paid the penalty, which conclusively establishes that the two sites are different and not one and the same? 8. Whether the very approach of the lower appellate Court is essentially erroneous and its findings are liable to be set aside (Jagdish Singh vs. Natthu Singh, AIR 1992 S.C., 1604)? 28. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned questions cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of being a "substantial questions of law" within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These questions, in our view, are essentially questions of fact. In any event, the second appeal did not involve any substantial questions of law as contemplated under Section 100 of CPC and lastly no case was made out by the respondents before the High Court for remanding of the case to the trial court for de novo trial in all the civil suits. This we say for following reasons. 29. In any event, the second appeal did not involve any substantial questions of law as contemplated under Section 100 of CPC and lastly no case was made out by the respondents before the High Court for remanding of the case to the trial court for de novo trial in all the civil suits. This we say for following reasons. 29. Firstly, when the trial court and the first appellate court on appreciation of evidence concurrently held in three civil suits filed by the respondents that they failed to prove their title over the suit-land and further in two civil suits filed by the appellants that they were able to establish their relationship of landlord and tenant in relation to the suit-land, such findings, in our opinion, were binding on the High Court being concurrent in nature. 30. Secondly, none of the findings of the two courts below were perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever come to such conclusion and that these findings were not in conflict with any provision of law governing the issue and that the findings were also not against the pleadings or evidence. In this view of the matter, in our view, these findings were not capable of being set aside by the High Court in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, rather they were binding on the High Court. 31. Thirdly, apart from what is held above, the questions formulated were neither debatable nor arguable and nor did they involve any question of law which could be said to arise in the case. In other words, sine qua non for admitting the second appeal was existence of "substantial question of law in the case" and therefore unless the questions framed were debatable, or/and arguable or/and involving any legal question, the High Court had no jurisdiction to formulate such questions treating them to be substantial question of law. Indeed the High Court had the jurisdiction under sub- Section (5) of Section 100 of CPC to examine at the time of hearing as to whether the questions framed were substantial questions of law or not and whether they arose out of the case, but the High Court failed to do so. 32. Indeed the High Court had the jurisdiction under sub- Section (5) of Section 100 of CPC to examine at the time of hearing as to whether the questions framed were substantial questions of law or not and whether they arose out of the case, but the High Court failed to do so. 32. Fourthly, having formulated the questions (though wrongly), the High Court went on to discuss all the issues in 59 pages as if it was hearing first appeals and instead of answering the questions, set aside the judgment/decree of the two courts below and proceeded to remand the cases to the trial court for de novo trial in all civil suits. In our opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the trial court inasmuch as no party to the appeal had even raised this ground before the first appellate court or/and the High Court as to why the remand of the case to the trial Court is called for and nor there was any finding recorded on this question by the first appellate court. 33. We also find that no party to the appeals complained at any stage of the proceedings that the trial in the suits was unsatisfactory which caused prejudice to them requiring remand of the cases to the trial court to enable them to lead additional evidence. In any event, we find that the High Court also did not frame any substantial question of law on the question as to whether any case for remand of the case to the trial court has been made out and if so on what grounds? 34. Section 100 empowers the High court to decide the second appeal only on the questions framed. In other words, the jurisdiction of High Curt to decide the second appeal is confined only to questions framed. When the High Court did not frame any question on the question of remand, to the trial court a fortiori it had no jurisdiction to deal with such question much less to answer in respondent’s favour. 35. In other words, the jurisdiction of High Curt to decide the second appeal is confined only to questions framed. When the High Court did not frame any question on the question of remand, to the trial court a fortiori it had no jurisdiction to deal with such question much less to answer in respondent’s favour. 35. The High Court, in our view, further failed to see that if the first appellate court could decide the appeal on merits without there being any objection raised for remanding of the case to the trial court, we are unable to appreciate as to why the High Court could not decide the appeal on merits and instead raised the issue of remand of its own and passed the order to that effect. 36. It is a settled principle of law that in order to claim remand of the case to the trial court, it is necessary for the appellant to first raise such plea and then make out a case of remand on facts. The power of the appellate court to remand the case to subordinate court is contained in order XLI Rule 23, 23-A and 25 of CPC. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the appellant to bring the case under any of these provisions before claiming a remand. The appellate court is required to record reasons as to why it has taken recourse to any one out of the three Rules of Order XLI of CPC for remanding the case to the trial court. In the absence of any ground taken by the respondents (appellants before the first appellate court and High Court) before the first appellate court and the High Court as to why the remand order in these cases is called for and if so under which Rule of Order XLI of CPC and further in the absence of any finding, there was no justification on the part of the High Court to remand the case to the trial court. The High Court instead should have decided the appeals on merits. We, however, do not consider proper to remand the case to High Court for deciding the appeals on merits and instead examine the merits of the case in these appeals.” 8. The High Court instead should have decided the appeals on merits. We, however, do not consider proper to remand the case to High Court for deciding the appeals on merits and instead examine the merits of the case in these appeals.” 8. What is ‘perverse’ was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a detailed judgment in Arulvelu and another vs. State Represented by the Public Prosecutor and another (2009) 10 SCC 206 wherein it was held as under:- “26. In M. S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma & Another AIR 1977 Kar. 58 , the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough, (1878) 1 LR 1r 331 the Court observed that a perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey 106 NW 814, the Court defined `perverse' as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct etc. 27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English Sixth Edition PERVERSE:- Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable. 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - International Edition PERVERSE: Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English - 1998 Edition PERVERSE: Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition) PERVERSE: Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, Fourth Edition PERVERSE: A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. 28. In Shailendra Pratap & Another v. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761 , the Court observed thus: (SCC p.766, para 8) "8…We are of the opinion that the trial court was quite justified in acquitting the appellants of the charges as the view taken by it was reasonable one and the order of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse. It is well settled that appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal unless the same is found to be perverse. In the present case, the High Court has committed an error in interfering with the order of acquittal of the appellants recorded by the trial court as the same did not suffer from the vice of perversity." 29. In Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police & Others (1999) 2 SCC 10 , the Court while dealing with the scope of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution observed as under: (SCC p.14, paras 9-10) "9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with." 30. The meaning of `perverse' has been examined in H. B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Karnal & Others v. Gopi Nath & Sons & Others 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312, this Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 316-17, para 7) "7. In the present case, the stage at and the points on which the challenge to the assessment in judicial review was raised and entertained was not appropriate. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in constituting itself into a court of appeal against the assessment. While it was open to the respondent to have raised and for the High Court to have considered whether the denial of relief under the proviso to Section 39(5) was proper or not, it was not open to the High Court reappreciate the primary or perceptive facts which were otherwise within the domain of the fact-finding authority under the statute. While it was open to the respondent to have raised and for the High Court to have considered whether the denial of relief under the proviso to Section 39(5) was proper or not, it was not open to the High Court reappreciate the primary or perceptive facts which were otherwise within the domain of the fact-finding authority under the statute. The question whether the transactions were or were not sales exigible to sales tax constituted an exercise in recording secondary or inferential facts based on primary facts found by the statutory authorities. But what was assailed in review was, in substance, the correctness - as distinguished from the legal permissibility - of the primary or perceptive facts themselves. It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law." 9. What is ‘perverse’ has further been considered by this Court in RSA No.436 of 2000, titled ‘Rubi Sood and another vs. Major (Retd.) Vijay Kumar Sud and others, decided on 28.05.2015 in the following manner:- “25….. A finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below can only be said to be perverse, which has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in miscarriage of justice, is open to correction, because it is not treated as a finding according to law. 26. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or even the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. 27. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable persons would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. 28. 27. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable persons would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. 28. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjectures and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non application of mind and thus, stands vitiated.” 10. What is ‘perversity’ came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar Lal vs. Sohan Devi and others (2016) 3 SCC 78 wherein it was held as under:- “8. “Perversity” has been the subject matter of umpteen number of decisions of this Court. It has also been settled by several decisions of this Court that the first appellate court, under Section 96 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is the last court of facts unless the findings are based on evidence or are perverse. 9. In Krishnan v. Backiam (2007) 12 SCC 190 , it has been held at paragraph-11 that: (SCC pp. 192-93) “11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect.” 10. In Gurvachan Kaur v. Salikram (2010) 15 SCC 530, at para 10, this principle has been reiterated: (SCC p. 532) “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. 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.” 11. In the case before us, there is clear and cogent evidence on the side of the plaintiff/appellant that there has been structural alteration in the premises rented out to the respondents without his consent. Attempt by the respondent-defendants to establish otherwise has been found to be totally non-acceptable to the trial court as well as the first appellate court. Material alteration of a property is not a fact confined to the exclusive/and personal knowledge of the owner. It is a matter of evidence, be it from the owner himself or any other witness speaking on behalf of the plaintiff who is conversant with the facts and the situation. PW-1 is the vendor of the plaintiff, who is also his power of attorney. He has stated in unmistakable terms that there was structural alteration in violation of the rent agreement. PW-2 has also supported the case of the plaintiff. Even the witnesses on behalf of the defendant, partially admitted that the defendants had effected some structural changes. 12. Be that as it may, the question whether there is a structural alteration in a tenanted premises is not a fact limited to the personal knowledge of the owner. It can be proved by any admissible and reliable evidence. That burden has been successfully discharged by the plaintiff by examining PWs-1 and 2. The defendants could not shake that evidence. In fact, that fact is proved partially from the evidence of the defendants themselves, as an admitted fact. Hence, only the trial court came to the definite finding on structural alteration. That finding has been endorsed by the first appellate court on reappreciation of the evidence, and therefore, the High Court in second appeal was not justified in upsetting the finding which is a pure question of fact. Hence, only the trial court came to the definite finding on structural alteration. That finding has been endorsed by the first appellate court on reappreciation of the evidence, and therefore, the High Court in second appeal was not justified in upsetting the finding which is a pure question of fact. We have no hesitation to note that both the questions of law framed by the High Court are not substantial questions of law. Even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong finding should stem out on a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. Safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man’s inference on the facts. To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity. If not, the finding is perverse. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity. 13. In Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann (2001) 4 SCC 262 , this Court has dealt with the limited leeway available to the High Court in second appeal. To quote para 34: (SCC pp.278- 79) “34. Admittedly, Section 100 has introduced a definite restriction on to the exercise of jurisdiction in a second appeal so far as the High Court is concerned. Needless to record that the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced such an embargo for such definite objectives and since we are not required to further probe on that score, we are not detailing out, but the fact remains that while it is true that in a second appeal a finding of fact, even if erroneous, will generally not be disturbed but where it is found that the findings stand vitiated on wrong test and on the basis of assumptions and conjectures and resultantly there is an element of perversity involved therein, the High Court in our view will be within its jurisdiction to deal with the issue. This is, however, only in the event such a fact is brought to light by the High Court explicitly and the judgment should also be categorical as to the issue of perversity vis-àvis the concept of justice. This is, however, only in the event such a fact is brought to light by the High Court explicitly and the judgment should also be categorical as to the issue of perversity vis-àvis the concept of justice. Needless to say however, that perversity itself is a substantial question worth adjudication — what is required is a categorical finding on the part of the High Court as to perversity. In this context reference be had to Section 103 of the Code which reads as below: ‘103. Power of High Court to determine issues of fact.- In any second appeal, the High Court may, if the evidence on the record is sufficient, determine any issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal,— (a) which has not been determined by the lower appellate court or by both the court of first instance and the lower appellate court, or (b) which has been wrongly determined by such court or courts by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in Section 100.” The requirements stand specified in Section 103 and nothing short of it will bring it within the ambit of Section 100 since the issue of perversity will also come within the ambit of substantial question of law as noticed above. The legality of finding of fact cannot but be termed to be a question of law. We reiterate however, that there must be a definite finding to that effect in the judgment of the High Court so as to make it evident that Section 100 of the Code stands complied with.” 14. In S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 602 , after referring to the decisions of this Court, starting with Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635 , it was held at para 30: (S.R.Tewari case, SCC p. 615) “30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn.[ (1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1984 SC 1805 ] ,Kuldeep Singh v.Commr. of Police[ (1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429 : AIR 1999 SC 677 ] ,Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. [ (2009) 10 SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372 : AIR 2010 SC 589 ] and Babu v.State of Kerala[ (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179] .)” This Court has also dealt with other aspects of perversity. 15. We do not propose to discuss other judgments, though there is plethora of settled case law on this issue. Suffice to say that the approach made by the High Court has been wholly wrong, if not, perverse. It should not have interfered with concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court on a pure question of fact. Their inference on facts is certainly reasonable. The strained effort made by the High Court in second appeal to arrive at a different finding is wholly unwarranted apart from being impermissible under law. Therefore, we have no hesitation to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court.” 11. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that the findings rendered by the learned Courts below are pure findings of fact. The Courts below after examining the entire pleadings and oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land and the entries existing in his favour in revenue records are merely paper entries. The Courts below after examining the entire pleadings and oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land and the entries existing in his favour in revenue records are merely paper entries. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has been shown to be the non-occupancy tenant in the ‘missal haqiyat bandobast jadid’ Ext. D-2, whereas, in the remarks column he is shown to have become owner of the suit land by operation of law. How this entry came about is any body's guess? Further, plaintiff has nowhere deposed that he was tenant of the defendant and that he had been conferred proprietary rights over the suit land. That apart, the plaintiff has not even explained as to how he came into possession. 12. On the other hand, the defendant has stated that he had got redeemed the suit land in the year 1992 and this fact is also admitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination. A perusal of jamabandi for the year 1967-68 Ext. D-1 goes to show that earlier father of the defendant was owner of the suit land and thereafter the defendant became its owner. Half share of Khasra No.50 (new Khasra No.258) was mortgaged with Devi Singh and Piar Singh which admittedly was redeemed in the year 1992. 13. In such circumstances, the findings rendered by the learned Courts below to the effect that the entries in Ext. D-2 are not binding on the defendant cannot be interfered with as the same were incorporated in connivance with the revenue officials and said findings cannot also be said to be perverse as the same are based upon evidence that has come on record. 14. It is more than settled that tenancy is a bilateral agreement of which rent is an essential ingredient. The plaintiff has failed to prove any such agreement on record. Therefore, in absence of an agreement, obviously then, the plaintiff was required to produce some order whereby tenancy in his favour has been created and thereafter proprietary rights had been conferred upon him. Thus, in absence of any agreement or order, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has been able to prove or establish his tenancy over the suit land so as to entitle him to be conferred proprietary rights over the same. 15. Thus, in absence of any agreement or order, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has been able to prove or establish his tenancy over the suit land so as to entitle him to be conferred proprietary rights over the same. 15. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the findings rendered by the learned Courts below are in any manner perverse, rather the same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record coupled with the pleadings of the parties. 16. Having said so, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.