JUDGMENT : A.K.Rath, J. This appeal is by the defendants. 2. Plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit. Case of the plaintiffs is that Daimati Dhakad and Dhonda were owners in possession of Ac.1.90 dec. of land appertaining to Khata No.21, Plot No.437 of Mouza-Aunli in the district of Koraput. They are related as brother and sister. After death of Dhonda, Daimati became the absolute owner of the suit property. Kona Dhakad is the husband of Daimati. Sansing and Ramsing are their sons. Kona, Daimati and Ramsing are dead. Sansing inherited the property left by his mother. He was in possession of the same. He alienated an area of Ac.1.90 dec. to the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.4.1980 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. The defendants forcefully possessed the suit land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants was that Daimati was the second wife of Sunadhar Dhakad of village Adabali, Madhya Pradesh. Sansing is the son of Sundadhar through his first wife. After dissolution of marriage, Daimati came back to the village and stayed with her brother. She again married to Kona. Out of their wedlock Ramsing was born. Sansing had no title over the suit property. The defendants are the nearest reversioners of Daimati and as such, entitled to succeed to the property. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary to substantiate their case. The suit was decreed. The defendants filed Title Appeal No.35/83. The appeal was remanded to the learned trial court by framing an additional issue “Whether Sansing Dhakad is the son of Kona Dhakad through Daimati or whether he is the son of Sunadhar Dhakad through his first wife?”. After remand, learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that Sansing was not the son of Kona Dhakad. He is the son of Sundadhar. Daimati was in possession of the suit land till her death. Defendants filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Koraput, which was transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge, Koraput-Jeypore and renumbered as TA No.5/87 (T.A No.3/86). Learned appellate court held that Sansing was the son of Kona Dhakad through Daimati. He is the son of Sundadhar. Daimati was in possession of the suit land till her death. Defendants filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Koraput, which was transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge, Koraput-Jeypore and renumbered as TA No.5/87 (T.A No.3/86). Learned appellate court held that Sansing was the son of Kona Dhakad through Daimati. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law; “Whether the finding of the appellate court that Sansing is the son of Daimati can be accepted on the finding that Kona Dhakad and Sundadhar Dhakad are not the same persons ? 6. Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Sansing is not the son of Kona Dhakad through Daimati. He is son of Sunadhar Dhakad through his first wife. He had no title over the suit property and as such, alienation made by Sansing has not conferred title on the plaintiffs. 7. Per contra Mr. S.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Sansing was the son of Kona Dhakad through Daimati. There is no perversity or illegality in the finding of the learned appellate court. 8. Learned appellate court came to hold that khata no.21 stands recorded in the name of Daimati Dhakad and Dhanda Dhakad in the ROR vide Ext.3. Dhanda Dhakad pre-deceased Daimati. Ramsing is the son of Daimati. In Ext.3, Daimati has been described as the wife of Kona Dhakad. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence on record, learned appellate court came to a conclusion that Sansing was the son of Kona Dhakad through Daimati. This is essentially a finding of fact. There is no perversity or illegality in the same. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. In the wake of the aforesaid, the appeal sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.