ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The unsuccessful plaintiff, who was the appellant in the learned first appellate court has filed this Second appeal under Section 100 CPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.02.2011 in Title Appeal no. 15 of 2008 passed by District Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder learned lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment of the Munsif, Gumla passed in Title Suit No. 50 of 2004 dated 25.11.2008. 3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief is that the plaintiff-appellant has been in the possession of the suit land for more than thirty years having constructed residential house over the suit land and by planting 37 trees and residing over suit land along with his family members. But the defendant no. 1 interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land on 11.06.2004 though he has no right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. It is also pleaded by the plaintiff that ‘Parwana’ of settlement vide case No. 1R8/1992-93 dated 06.04.1996 has not been made in respect of the suit land and it might be for any other portion of the plot for which said ‘Parwana’ of settlement was issued. The plaintiff also asserted that the settlement was false, fabricated and same has never been acted upon and the defendants were never in possession of the suit land hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title on the basis of the possession over the suit land and to declare that settlement made in favour of defendant no. 1 in settlement case no. 1R8/1992-93 is null and void, illegal and is not binding upon the plaintiff. 4. The case of the defendant no. 1 on the other hand is that the suit land has been settled in his favour by ‘Parwana’ of settlement bearing case no. 1R8/1992-93 dated 06.04.1996. The case of the defendant is that suit land having an Area 2 acres land out of 20 acres land under Khata No. 598, plot no. 1501, has been settled in his name by the said settlement case no. 1/1992-93 dated 12.12.1996. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant is originally resident of village-Nawatoli of Tengaria Panchayat and he has come to Palkot about 5-6 years before his filing of written statement. 5. 1501, has been settled in his name by the said settlement case no. 1/1992-93 dated 12.12.1996. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant is originally resident of village-Nawatoli of Tengaria Panchayat and he has come to Palkot about 5-6 years before his filing of written statement. 5. It is further case of the defendants that the plaintiff-appellant used to live in a rented house at Palkot but the plaintiff-appellant never came in possession over the suit land. The defendant further contended that he was in peaceful possession of the land which was later on settled in his favour. The defendant no. 1 also pleaded that Circle Officer, Palkot issued notice to the respondent saying that a blind school and a hostel is going to be constructed at the government expense and when the defendant-respondent objected the construction of the school, then the Government did not proceed further to construct the school over the suit land. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, learned trial court framed altogether eight issues. The main issues being issue no. 3- “Is the plaintiff in possession over the suit land more than 30 years and has constructed the residential house thereon ?” and issue no. 4 being- “Is the ‘Parwana’ of settlement in favour of the defendant bearing case no. 1R9/92-93 dated 06.04.1996 legal and valid?”. On the basis of the evidence, learned trial court answered both the issues against the plaintiff-appellant and dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Gumla and the same was numbered as Title Appeal No. 15 of 2008 and ultimately, the same was heard and decided by learned District Judge, Gumla by the impugned judgment and decree. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Gumla and the same was numbered as Title Appeal No. 15 of 2008 and ultimately, the same was heard and decided by learned District Judge, Gumla by the impugned judgment and decree. Learned lower appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record in respect of the issues and after considering that the plaintiff-appellant though pleaded title only on the basis of the possession which in other words, amounts to claiming title basing on adverse possession, he has not mentioned even the essential facts to constitute an adverse possession and also considered that the witnesses of the plaintiff have not deposed any convincing evidence in respect of his claim for title based on adverse possession and holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. 8. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and learned court below also neither considered nor discussed the evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that court below erred by relying upon the notice issued by Circle Officer to the defendant no. 1 in respect of construction of a blind school over his settled land and also submitted that learned court below basing upon the evidence in the record and the fact that witnesses of the plaintiff were not cross-examined on material parts of their deposition, ought to have allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the record, I find that learned lower appellate court has considered the evidence put forth by the rival parties by making a threadbare discussion and has also taken the note of the fact that the plaintiff-appellant has not pleaded the essential ingredients of the adverse possession and not even mentioned in the plaint, the date from which he was in possession of the suit land or that his possession was adverse to real owner and he has not even pleaded that who was the real owner of the suit land, over which the plaintiff claimed to be in possession. 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). 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered and his contention that court below erred by relying upon the notice issued by Circle Officer to the defendant no. 1 in respect of construction of a blind school over his settled land is without any merit. 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. 11. Thus there being no merit, this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs.