JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.123 of 2006 whereby and whereunder, the learned lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial court in Title Suit No.3 of 2001. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land along with 50 decimals of plot no.710 was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ father SK. Sabar Ali through the Partition Suit No.55 of 1950 has got the same in his share along with other lands and after him the plaintiffs became the owners and have been in possession of the said land. On 27.05.2000, the defendant-respondent tried to take possession of the suit land which gave rise to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. but the same was dropped. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant has no right, title and interest or possession over the suit land. The case of the defendant on the other hand is that the suit plot no.711 appertaining to Khata No.1 of village Harmu was recorded in R.S. Khatian as ‘Ziraat-malik’ under Khewat No.2 in the name of Mr. H.R. Helford, the landlord of the village. Mr. Helford died leaving behind is widow Marry Helford and daughter Beatrice Ella Gleeson with a will executed in favour of his widow. After the death of Mr. Helford, his will was probated by his widow in her favour and she became the landlady of the village. Marry Helford and her daughter sold their intermediary right by virtue of a registered sale deed and put the vendor in possession of the same. After vesting of intermediary interest a fair and equitable rent was assessed with respect to said land in the name of ex-landlord of the village and accordingly the suit land become raiyati land of the ex-landlord. It is further the case of the defendant that the son of Late Babu Nand Kumar Lal namely Dr. After vesting of intermediary interest a fair and equitable rent was assessed with respect to said land in the name of ex-landlord of the village and accordingly the suit land become raiyati land of the ex-landlord. It is further the case of the defendant that the son of Late Babu Nand Kumar Lal namely Dr. Govindjee Sahay and other descendants sold portion of the said plot nos.711 and 717 to Smt. Ram Sundari Devi by virtue of registered sale deed and put her in possession thereof and her name was mutated and the said Ram Sundari Devi sold the suit land to the son of the defendant namely Dhiraj Kumar Prasad by virtue of registered sale deed and thus the defendant and his son became the title holder and rightful owner of the suit land. The suit land is mutated in the name of the son of the defendant. The defendant denied that the suit land ever belonged to the ancestor of the plaintiffs at any point of time. 4. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court altogether framed six issues. The main issues being issue no. IV, which is as follows:- IV. Whether plaintiffs have title over the suit land? The learned trial court came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no documentary evidence in support of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land whereas the defendant has the document in respect of the suit land and by observing that the plaintiffs have no title over the suit land, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court the plaintiff-appellants filed an appeal in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which was numbered as Title Appeal No.123 of 2006. Ultimately the said appeal was heard and disposed of by the learned First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment. The learned First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties framed the following points for determination:- (I) Whether the suit plot no.711 is parcel of plaintiff’s holding namely Khata No.4 or it was eligible for partition in the family of the plaintiffs. (II) Whether the plaintiffs may succeed on the basis of any defect of title of the defendant to the suit land. 6. (II) Whether the plaintiffs may succeed on the basis of any defect of title of the defendant to the suit land. 6. The learned first appellate court considered that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant are superior to the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and also considered that the Khatiyan of Khata no.1 and 4 shows that plot no.711 lies under Khata No.1 and not under Khata no.4 and thus the suit plot had never been under the holding of the plaintiffs’ family, the same was not available for partition between the members of the plaintiffs’ family and also considered that the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of any defect or lacuna in the case of the defendants and has to stand on their own legs and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. 7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence in record in its proper perspective and the learned court below erred by not giving any finding on the point of possession of the parties to the suit in respect of the suit property. 8. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-defendant submits that there is concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after perusal of the record, I find that the learned First Appellate Court has made threadbare discussion of the evidence in record and after considering the fact that the plaintiffs have failed to produce any document whatsoever in respect of the suit property and that the oral evidence put forth by it in support of its case is not trustworthy, dismissed the appeal. 10. 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:- 11. "10. "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). 12. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered. The learned Counsel for the appellants 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. 13. Accordingly, there being no merit, this appeal is dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without any costs. 14. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court below forthwith.