JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the trial court have filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2011 passed by learned District Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2009 whereby and whereunder learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiffs filed the Title Suit no. 11 of 2008 in the court of Munsif, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa contending that Birbal Tanti died leaving behind three sons namely Sujan Tanti, Sud Tanti @ Sudarshan Tanti and Gurucharan Tanti. Birbal Tanti died fifty years before filing of the suit. Sujan Tanti died leaving behind four sons namely Rengta Tanti, Suren Tanti (plaintiff no. 2), Borjo Tanti (plaintiff no. 3) and Raju Tanti. Sud Tanti @ Sudharhan Tanti died leaving behind his widow Duli Tanti, one son- Gurua Tanti and two daughters namely Shakuntala Tantin (defendant no. 1) and Parwati Tantin (defendant no. 2). The plaintiff no. 1-Biskeshan Tanti, is the son of Gurua Tanti and thus the grandson of Sud Tanti @ Sudarshan Tanti. Plaintiff no. 4- Kishan Tanti is the son of Rengta Tanti and thus the grand-son of Sujan Tanti. The pro-forma defendants-Suru Tanti is also son of Rengta Tanti and thus grandson of Sujan Tanti. The plaintiff no. 5 Chhidra Tanti is the son of Gurucharan Tanti and grandson of Birbal Tanti and pro-forma defendant no. 3-Hira Tanti is the son of Kuwar Tanti and grandson of Gurucharan Tanti and thus, plaintiff no. 5 and pro-forma defendant no. 3 are the descendants of Gurucharan Tanti being the son and grandson respectively. The plaintiff no. 1 lives in his native village at Simirta, P.S.-Manoharpur, District-West Singhbhum whereas other plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 migrated to different places in search of their livelihood. 3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the record of right of plot nos. The plaintiff no. 1 lives in his native village at Simirta, P.S.-Manoharpur, District-West Singhbhum whereas other plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 migrated to different places in search of their livelihood. 3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the record of right of plot nos. 806, 807, 808/1093 under Khata No. 171 and 172 of Mauza- Simirta, P.S.- Manoharpur stands recorded in name of Sujan Tanti, Sud Tanti @ Sudharshan Tanti and Gurucharan Tanti, all sons of Birbal Tanti and upon death of the said three recorded tenants, the suit plots devolved upon their descendants and the descendants of the said three recorded tenants remained in cultivable possession jointly in the manner the land stands recorded in the name of their respective predecessors and enjoying the usufruct in their lifetime. It was also pleaded by plaintiffs that there was no partition between the co-sharers in respect of the suit plots. Parties are Hindus by faith and are governed by principles of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. 4. It is the further case of plaintiffs that defendant nos. 1 and 2 sold a portion of land to the strangers and those strangers came in the month of January, 2008 and created disturbance in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the mother of defendant nos. 1 and 2 has executed the gift deed bearing no. 1357 dated 01.05.1985 in favor of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and in the recital of the gift deed, it was mentioned that the said Duli Tantin had no son but had only two daughters being the defendant nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs further asserted that the averments of the recital of the said gift deed, is false and Duli Tantin cold not have gifted the entire suit plots by herself since she had only one share in it, that too, only 1/3rd share of Sud Tanti @ Sudarshan Tanti- her husband. The plaintiff further asserted that the gift deed was never executed by Duli Tantin. 5. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs and pro-forma defendants are in no way connected or concerned with the family of the recorded tenant nor they are descendants of the recorded tenants Sujan Tanti, Sud @ Sudarshan Tanti and Gurucharan Tanti. 6. The plaintiff further asserted that the gift deed was never executed by Duli Tantin. 5. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs and pro-forma defendants are in no way connected or concerned with the family of the recorded tenant nor they are descendants of the recorded tenants Sujan Tanti, Sud @ Sudarshan Tanti and Gurucharan Tanti. 6. It is the further case of defendants that Sujan Tanti and Gurucharan Tanti died issueless and Sud @ Sudarshan Tanti died leaving behind his widow Duli Tantin and his two daughters, namely, Shakuntala Tantin and Parwati Tantin. Sud @ Sudarshan Tanti had no son having name of Gurua Tanti, as has been falsely claimed by the plaintiffs. 7. It is also the case of the defendants that the suit land was in the possession and cultivated by Duli Tantin and in course of time, Duli Tantin conveyed all the property in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 by the said registered gift deed. The gift was accepted by defendant nos. 1 and 2 and since then, defendant nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the suit land and they are the exclusive owners of the suit property and got their name mutated in the Sherista of State of Bihar vide Mutation Case No. 185 of 1985-86 and thus, defendant nos. 1 and 2 remained in continuous peaceful possession over the suit land and transferred the suit land to meet the expenses of treatment of son of defendant no. 2 and other expenses. 8. On the basis of rival pleadings, learned trial court framed altogether eights issues, the main issue being issue no. 4 “Whether plaintiffs and pro-forma defendants are descendants of recorded tenant, namely, Sujan Tanti, Sud Tanti and Gurucharan Tanti?”. 9. Learned trial court after considering the evidence in the record observed that the witnesses of the plaintiffs have not seen the recorded tenants and also observed that from the certified copy of the voter list, which was marked as Exhibit 5, it can only be inferred that the persons whose name appears therein are voters and the residents of village concerned and the same cannot be considered as an evidence on the point of genealogy of the recorded tenants. Learned trial court also considered that the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs on the point of genealogy of the plaintiffs were not in terms of Section 50 of the Evidence Act. Learned trial court further considered that the plaintiffs were not even aware that defendant- Shakuntala Tantin is not a widow and they have to make an amendment in the plaint as initially they pleaded that Shakuntala Tantin was also a widow like her sister and answered the issue no. 4 against the plaintiffs. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2009, passed in Title Suit no. 11 of 2008, the appellants preferred appeal before learned District Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and the same was numbered as Title Appeal no. 14 of 2009 and ultimately, the same was heard and decided by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. Learned first appellate court made an independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and considered that nothing was brought on record about Gurua Tanti who according to the plaintiffs, was the son of Sud Tanti @ Sudarshan Tanti and Duli Tantin and defendant no. 1, who was examined as DW1 was not cross-examined on the point of her relationship with Gurua Tanti or the alleged false averments made in the gift deed and also considered that plaintiff no. 1 failed to file rent receipts or other documents of title in respect of the suit property and dismissed the appeal as indicated above. 11. Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned court below failed to consider the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and the Exhibit 5 being the voter list was misconstrued by learned trial court and the first appellate court erred by not considering the same and its effect was not given due weightage by learned first appellate court. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal reported in AIR 2006 (5) SC 2234 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph 24:- 24. The principles relating to Section 100, CPC, relevant for this case, may be summarised thus:- (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. The principles relating to Section 100, CPC, relevant for this case, may be summarised thus:- (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. Learned counsel for appellants also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kochukakkada Aboobacker (Dead) By LRS. And Others vs. Attah Kasim And Others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 389 wherein facts and circumstances of that case, where trial court had wrongly proceeded in the premise of burden of proof on the plaintiffs which was corrected by the appellate court but the appellate court committed another error by not considering the documentary evidence in proper perspective of the respective claims of the parties and failed to consider the Exhibit A-3 of that case, which was a crucial document in establishing the title of the plaintiffs in the property and the High Court reluctantly reconsidered the evidence, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court has quite rightly done so, since it is not mere appreciation of evidence but what involved in that case was drawing inferences of the admitted document and since in that case, proper construction of the document and inference had been illegally drawn and the High Court has rightly gone in detail in recording its finding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the judgment of the High Court. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the record, I find that the learned lower court has considered the fact that the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs on the point of genealogy and relationship, were not relatives of the family nor they had any special knowledge as envisaged under Section 50 of the Evidence Act and also discussed threadbare the oral and documentary evidence in the record. The principles of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are the settled principles with which I am in respectful agreement with. But the learned counsel for the appellants failed to show to this court any wrong application of any principle of law in construing any document or the learned first appellate court either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle, having a material bearing on the decision of the case. But the learned counsel for the appellants failed to show to this court any wrong application of any principle of law in construing any document or the learned first appellate court either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle, having a material bearing on the decision of the case. Nor could the learned counsel for the appellant show that the learned first appellate court has ignored any material evidence or drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or for that matter wrongly casting the burden of proof on the appellants. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Exhibit-5- the voter list was not properly misconstrued but he cannot substantiate his submission to show which principle of law was not followed or wrongly followed by the learned first appellate court, in the matter of construction of the said document. 14. In view of the discussions made above, this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this Second appeal and also no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, accordingly this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.