JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.1992 of 4th Additional District Judge, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No. 71 of 1987, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif Koderma passed in Title Suit No. 7 of 1981 filed by the plaintiff-appellant of this second appeal with prayer for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the schedule A land of the suit land and other relief’s. 3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant of this second appeal is that Smt. Pato Kumari inducted the father of the plaintiff namely Bodhi Hazam in respect of suit land by granting Dar-raiyat paper with permanent right there under. The father of the plaintiff continued in possession along with other land, which was too given to him by virtue of Dar-raiyati paper in the year 1996 Sambat. After the death of the father of the plaintiff Bodhi Hazam in the year 1960, the plaintiff continued to be in possession over the suit land and the rent was paid to Smt. Pato Kumari in respect of the suit land. The land of Khata no. 612 was recorded in the name of plaintiff in the Khatiyan finally published under Section 83(2) Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in the year 1996 but in the remarks column of the Khatiyan, the status of plaintiff was shown as Sikamidar under the raiyat of Smt. Pato Kumari. Although Khatiyan was prepared in the name of the plaintiff but due to entry in the remark column as Sikamidar, the plaintiff was advised to take a sale deed in respect of suit land from Smt. Pato Kumari. Consequently, Smt. Pato Kumari executed a registered sale deed on 02.05.73 in respect of suit land and other land for consideration of Rs. 200/- in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff got his name mutated and paid rent to the State of Bihar in respect of the land of Khata no. 612. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his father converted Schedule ‘A’ land to paddy filed which was previously tand land. 200/- in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff got his name mutated and paid rent to the State of Bihar in respect of the land of Khata no. 612. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his father converted Schedule ‘A’ land to paddy filed which was previously tand land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants having no right, title or possession over the suit land wanted to disturb his possession, which resulted to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and later on, the same was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C and the Executive Magistrate decided the case ex-parte. The plaintiff has made categorical averments that he has acquired title over the suit land by remaining in possession of the suit property and of the other land adversely to the complete ouster of the defendant and the whole world. 4. In their written statement the defendants besides the usual defence and categorically denied the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and pleaded that the suit plot was part and parcel of land of cadastral survey khata no. 331 of the village Tilaiya. During the last cadastral survey, Thakuri Sonar and Barho Sonar were the raiyats of the lands and accordingly the land of Khata No. 331 of village Telaiya were recorded in the name of the said raiyat Thakuri Sonar and Barho Sonar. The said Thakuri Sonar and Barho Sonar in few years after the cadastral survey gave the land measuring 0.34 acres to defendant no. 3 for cultivation and subsequently, they settled in permanent Dar-raiyati of the said land with the defendant no. 3 in the year 1994 Sambat and thereafter the said raiyats Thakuri Sonar and Barho Sonar executed and granted a Dar-raiyati Hukumnama on receipt of salami of Rs. 51/- and since that day, defendant no. 3 in capacity of permanent Dar-raiyati started cultivating the land growing the crops and appropriating the usufructs thereof to the knowledge of the recorded raiyat Thakuri Sonar and Barho Sonar and entire world. The further case of the defendants is that the defendant no. 3 amalgamated his land of plot no. 2645 with his other land of the plot no. 2644 and made improvements in the land and converted the said land into Dhan khets from Tand lands. The remaining land of old plot no. The further case of the defendants is that the defendant no. 3 amalgamated his land of plot no. 2645 with his other land of the plot no. 2644 and made improvements in the land and converted the said land into Dhan khets from Tand lands. The remaining land of old plot no. 2644 and new plot no. 4812 and 4813 measuring an area of 0.18 acres was purchased from Dilo Kumari, the raiyat in possession thereof by the defendants in the name of the defendant no. 1 through a registered deed of sale dated 15.02.77 and after the said purchase, the defendants also came in possession of the remaining 18 decimals of land of the old plot no. 2644 corresponding to the land of the new plot no. 4812 and 4813. It is also the case of the defendants that the plaintiff in collusion with the survey Amlas and the men of Smt. Pato Kumari by manipulation managed entry of name in the khatiyan of Khata No. 612. 5. Learned trial Court basing upon the rival pleadings framed as many as six issues. The main issue being issue no 4 – “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land?” Learned trial Court decided the issue in favour of plaintiff and decreed the suit. 6. The defendants filed appeal before the District Judge, Hazaribagh and the same was registered as Title Appeal No. 71 of 87. Title Appeal No. 71 of 87 was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated by this Court :- i. Whether the Court of appeal below committed grave error of law in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and dismissing the suit without determining that whether the defendants were able to rebut the presumption of correctness of Record of Rights in favour of the plaintiff? ii. ii. Whether the learned Court of Appeal below without meeting the reasons for the findings of the Trial Court would have reversed the same, in exercise of jurisdiction as appellate Court in a Title Appeal? 7. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial Court has considered the oral evidence and assigned the reasons for believing the same and had the advantage to watch the demeanor of the witnesses which the lower appellate Court had not. It was further submitted that defendants have miserably failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the record of right by oral evidence. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned lower appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence in record and has not assigned any reason for differing with the findings of the learned trial Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bibi Riajan Khatoon and Others v. Sadrul Alam and Others reported in (AIR) 1996 PATNA 156, wherein the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower appellant Court has merely referred the statement of the P.Ws and disbelieved the same without assigning any reason and no point was formulated nor any discussion was made in reference to the evidence relied upon by the learned trial Court, the Hon’ble Patna High Court held that such judgments need not be upheld in Second Appeal and as in that case, in the absence of four elements of validity of gift being proved to be present, the gift was held to be valid. Hon’ble Patna High Court in that case held that matter be remanded back to lower appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in that judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.V.R. Mudaliar (dead) by LRs. And others v. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) by LRs. And others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1607 , wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that before reversing a finding of fact, the appellate Court has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by the trial Court. And others v. Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) by LRs. And others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1607 , wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that before reversing a finding of fact, the appellate Court has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Sona Devi v. Nagina Singh and Others reported in AIR 1997 Pat. 67 wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case, Hon’ble Patna High Court has held as under in paragraph 21- “In view of the mandatory provision of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code whenever the judgment of the lower appellate Court was a judgment of reversal it was the primary duty of the appellate Court while reversing the findings of the trial Court to consider the reasons given by the trial Court and those reasons must also be reversed.” Learned counsel for the appellant next relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dwarika Sonar & Ors. V. Most. Bilguli & Ors. reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 708 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the maximum period of limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for challenging the entry made in survey record is twelve years from the date of final publication of the record. In Dwarika Sonar case (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court also reiterated the settled principle of law that finally published records of right which is admissible in evidence and a presumption is attached to that entry in the finally published records of right. 8. In Dwarika Sonar case (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court also reiterated the settled principle of law that finally published records of right which is admissible in evidence and a presumption is attached to that entry in the finally published records of right. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment and submitted that learned lower appellate Court has formulated the point for determination rightly and has elaborately discussed the evidence in the record both oral and documentary and differed with the findings of the trial Court mainly because important admissions made by the witnesses of the plaintiff regarding the case of the defendants was not considered by learned trial Court and hence, learned Court below having rightly come to the findings of facts being the final Court of facts, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, hence, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed, keeping in view, the limited jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with the findings of facts of first appellate Court being the final Court of facts. 9. After carefully going through the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, I find that lower Appellate Court has framed the following points for determination: “Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title, and confirmation of possession over the suit land” Learned appellate Court has taken into consideration that though Smt. Pato Kumari executed sale deed dated 2.05.73 marked as Exhibit 1 but later on, she cancelled sale deed on 08.05.73, which has been marked as Exhibit B. Learned lower appellate Court has also considered that though the plaintiff has pleaded about the execution of sale deed by Smt. Pato Kumari yet the claim of the title of the plaintiff is solely based on long possession and not based on the sale deed executed by Smt. Pato Kumari in his favour. Learned lower appellate Court considered the testimony of P.W.2- Lal Mohan Singh, who, though a witness of plaintiff has categorically stated the suit land to be in possession of the defendants since long before the institution of the suit and as the plaintiff did not pay the consideration money to Smt. Pato Kumari, hence, Smt. Pato Kumari cancelled the sale deed. Learned lower appellate Court has also considered the testimony of P.W.3- Budhan Dhobi who has stated that no R. S. Khatiyan has been filed in the name of the plaintiff. Lower appellate Court has also referred to the deposition of P.W.4 – Horil Yadav, who though a witness of the plaintiff has stated that Sukari Rana who is the father of the defendant no. 1, converted the disputed land into paddy land and that the P.W.4 further in his cross-examination has stated that the disputed land originally belonged to Thakuri Sonar and Barho Sonar who gave lands to Sukhari Rana as Dar-raiyat and after the death of Sukhari Rana, his sons are in cultivating possession of the suit land and he also stated that Smt. Pato Kumari sold the suit land to Dilo Kumari and Dilo Kumari subsequently sold the land to Ganga Rana. Learned lower appellate Court also considered the deposition of PW4 to the extent that PW4 has stated that the plaintiff and his father has no concern with the disputed land and the plaintiff has filed a suit simply to harass the defendant and the plaintiff got his name recorded in R. S. Khatiyan by playing fraud. Learned lower appellate Court further considered the deposition of P.W.5- Bisheshwar Narain Singh who admitted in his cross-examination that the disputed land is in cultivating possession of Ganga Rana, the defendant since last fifteen years and the evidence of P.W.5 was recorded on 12.10.1985 and the P.W.5 also deposed that prior to execution of the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had got no concern with the suit. Learned Court below has discussed the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants and plaintiff threadbare and came to the findings that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title and possession over the suit land. 10. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record including the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, I find that learned lower Appellate court has considered all the relevant facts, evidences and materials on record in correct perspective. 10. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record including the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, I find that learned lower Appellate court has considered all the relevant facts, evidences and materials on record in correct perspective. 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. In the cases of Md. Murtaza vs. Md. Israil & Anr., reported in [ 2006 (4) JCR 281 (Jhr)] and Arbind Kumar Sinha vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in [ 2006 (4) JCR 285 (Jhr)] the coordinate benches of this court relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arumugham v. Sundarambal reported in (1999) 4 SCC 350 held that “This Court cannot interfere with the judgment and decree of learned lower appellate Court on the ground that the lower appellate Court failed to advert to the reasons ascribed by the trial Court” . (Emphasis Supplied) 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the view that the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission of this appeal, do not arise as the finding recorded by the lower appellate court is a finding of facts which needs no interference by this court. 13. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs. Send back the lower court records with a copy of this judgment to the court below forthwith.