JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The plaintiff in the trial court who was also unsuccessful appellant in lower appellate Court has preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the daughter of Gulab Pandey. Gulab Pandey executed a gift deed in respect of the suit land bearing plot number 695, Khata Number 150 of Village Deoriya, P.S.-Chatra, District-Chatra on 14.03.2003 in favour of the plaintiff. The suit land is the ancestral property of Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey and on an amicable oral partition between the co-sharers of Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey, obviously prior to 07.09.1978, 0.07 acres of land of plot number 552 and 0.06 acres of land out of 0.12 acres of land of plot number 695, both the plots of Khata number 130 of said village Deoriya were allotted in the shares of Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Bhagan Pandey and Gulab Pandey jointly sold 0.07 acres of land of plot 552, Khata Number 130 of the said village Deoriya by a registered deed of sale on 07.09.1978 to Dilip Kumar Vishwarkarma (defendant number 2) but the boundary of the land mentioned in the said sale deed dated 07.09.1978 is wrong and the description of the boundary is akin to the boundary of 0.07 acres of land of plot number 695 of the said Khata Number 130. The said Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma sold the 0.07 acres of land, which he had purchased from Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey by way of registered sale deed number 3074 on 06.06.2003, in favour of the defendant number 1-Lilawati Devi. In the sale deed executed by Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma also the plot number 552 and the same boundary which was mentioned in the sale deed executed by Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey in favour of Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma, was mentioned. In the sale deed executed by Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma also the plot number 552 and the same boundary which was mentioned in the sale deed executed by Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey in favour of Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma, was mentioned. It is also the case of the plaintiff that since land of plot number 695 has not been sold to defendants, hence, the defendants have no right, title, interest over the suit land, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her right, title, interest and possession over the suit land also for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants for not interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property by the plaintiff as well as for delivery of possession through the process of Court to the plaintiff, if the plaintiff is found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. It is further case of the plaintiff that there was oral partition in the year 1980 between Harihar Pandey and Gulab Pandey and his brothers in which, Khata Number 130, plot number 695, area 0.06 acres of land was allotted to Gulab Pandey and Gulab Pandey came in possession of the said land. 4. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that Bhagan Pandey and Gulab Pandey in fact sold the land of plot number 695 of the said Khata Number 130 but the plot number was wrongly mentioned and the boundary has been rightly mentioned as that of the seven decimals of land out of plot number 695 of Khata number 130 of the said village Deoriya. 5. Learned trial court on the basis of rival pleadings of the parties altogether framed nine issues. The important issues being issue nos. VI, VII and VIII, out of them, issue number VI is as under:- (VI) Was there any oral partition in between the share holders for plot number 552 & 695 and have they possess their share? Obviously, this issue refers to the oral partition of the plot in the year 1980. Issues number VII and VIII are as under:- (VII) Was Gulab Pandey empowered to execute gift deed and if yes, with what gift? (VIII) Was defendant number 2 in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed number 3760 dated 07.09.78? 6. Obviously, this issue refers to the oral partition of the plot in the year 1980. Issues number VII and VIII are as under:- (VII) Was Gulab Pandey empowered to execute gift deed and if yes, with what gift? (VIII) Was defendant number 2 in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed number 3760 dated 07.09.78? 6. Learned trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence in the record, answered all the three issues i.e. issue nos. VI, VII and VIII against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by judgment dated 26th August, 2008 passed by the trial court in Title Suit number 10 of 2004, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal in the Court of District Judge, Chatra and the same was numbered as Title Appeal number 21 of 2008 and consequent upon the transfer, the same was ultimately heard and decided by learned District Judge, II, Chatra vide judgment dated 30th May, 2014. Learned lower appellate Court framed following points for determination:- (i) Is the plaintiff/appellant entitled for declaration of her right, title and possession over the suit land on the basis of gift deed number 4052 dated 14.07.2003, executed in her favour by her father Gulab Pandey. (ii) Whether Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma (respondent number 2) and Lilawati Devi (Resp. number 1) entitled for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land on the basis of respective sale deeds executed in their favour. 8. After independent consideration of both oral and documentary evidence available in the record, learned lower appellate Court answered both the points against the plaintiff-appellant and dismissed the appeal. 9. Mr. number 1) entitled for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land on the basis of respective sale deeds executed in their favour. 8. After independent consideration of both oral and documentary evidence available in the record, learned lower appellate Court answered both the points against the plaintiff-appellant and dismissed the appeal. 9. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned lower appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and learned lower appellate Court on the basis of the evidence available in the record ought to have held that the gift deed has rightly been executed by Gulab Pandey in favour of the plaintiff and at no point of time, Gulab Pandey transferred suit land in favour of defendant number 2-Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma and as Bhagan Pandey and Gulab Pandey have transferred the land of plot number 552 specifically mentioning the plot number of the same in the sale deed bearing number 3760 dated 07.09.1997 and Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma having not acquired any right, title interest over the suit land, he has no right to transfer the same to defendant number 1-Lilawati Devi vide registered sale deed number 3074. Learned counsel also submitted that the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the important facts and materials on record. 10. After hearing the submissions made at the bar and careful perusal of the case record, I find that the learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal has considered the fact that Gulab Pandey has executed two rectification documents in respect of the mistake in mentioning of the plot number, which were marked as Exhibit B and Exhibit C, which of course Gulab Pandey denied having executed in his deposition. Learned lower appellate Court also took into consideration the fact that Gulab Pandey also subsequent to the sale deed executed in favour of Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma has also executed another sale deed in respect of 4 decimals of land of plot number 552 in favour of Niranjan Lal Agrawal even though the area of the land in plot number 552 was in total only 7 decimals, so had Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey, in fact sold the entire 7 decimals of land out of plot number 552, then there was no occasion for them to transfer 4 decimals of plot number 552 in favour of Niranjan Lal Agrawal vide sale deed number 2971 dated 15.06.1979 as once it is accepted that Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey, in fact sold the entire 7 decimals of land out of plot number 552 then there was no further land left in that plot to be sold by Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey. The learned lower appellate court also considered that the boundaries given in the sale deed executed by Gulab Pandey and Bhagan Pandey in favour of Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma, are the same as the boundaries mentioned in the record of right in respect of the plot number 695 and the boundaries do not match with the boundaries of plot number 552 as mentioned in the said record of right. 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. 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.