JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Pakur, in Title Appeal No.03 of 2007 whereby and where under the learned lower court below has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 3. It is the admitted case of the parties that one Rani Hembram was the recorded tenant and owner of the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff that the wife of the plaintiff namely Durgi Hansda was adopted by the said Rani Hembram. After the death of the husband of Rani Hembram, the wife of the plaintiff Durgi Hansda was given in marriage to the plaintiff in gharjamai (Illatom son-in-law) form of marriage after observing ceremonies like ‘Lebedh-achur’ etc. in presence of villagers and a document of adoption was prepared in this respect. After the death of Rani Hembram, the plaintiff acquired title and ownership over the suit land belonging to Rani Hembram. The plaintiff also pleaded that he has perfected right and title over the suit property by adverse possession. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1990 at the time of harvesting, apprehending some untoward incidents at the hands of defendants, the matter was reported to the S.D.O., Pakur on 10.12.1990. On 04.03.1991 the defendants forcibly entered into the suit property causing criminal trespass and harvested wheat crops from the suit land and for that a criminal case in the court of S.D.J.M., Pakur was filed. Hence, he filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property described in the plaint. 4. The case of the defendants on the other hand is that Domini Hembram was the sister of Rani Hembram and the daughter of Murli Hembram. Rani Hembram was married in gharjamai (Illatom son-in-law) form of marriage with Gondra Murmu. Palo Baskey was the grandson of Domini Hembram and accordingly, he was related with Rani Hembram. When Rani Hembram became alone and found no one to serve her, she gave her lands to Palo Baskey on Zimanama to cultivate. Palo Baskey looked after Rani Hembram in her old age and the whole land of Rani Hembram was in possession of Palo Baskey. When Rani Hembram became alone and found no one to serve her, she gave her lands to Palo Baskey on Zimanama to cultivate. Palo Baskey looked after Rani Hembram in her old age and the whole land of Rani Hembram was in possession of Palo Baskey. It is also the case of the defendants that Rani Hembram never adopted Durgi Hansda nor Durgi Hansda was given in gharjamai form of marriage to Chunku Marandi- the plaintiff. It is also the case of the defendants that as per the Santhal Customs and usages Rani Hembram being a widow cannot adopt any boy or girl and also cannot give any girl in gharjamai form of marriage. The defendants pleaded that the document in respect of adoption is forged and fabricated. The defendants also pleaded that whenever a girl or boy is taken into adoption her or his surname changes with the surname of her or his mother or father and it was pleaded that the fact that the surname of Durgi Hansda was not the same as Rani Hembram or as her husband, indicates that she was not adopted. It is the further case of the defendants that in the year 1940 Rani Hembram gave her lands on Zimanama to Palo Baskey. In Revenue Misc. Case No.11 of 1940-41, the then S.D.O., Pakur vide his order dated 18.03.1941 ordered that Palo Baskey was the grandson of Rani Hembram and he was looking after Rani Hembram and cultivating her land during her lifetime. It is also the case of the defendants that being co-agnates and nearest male survivor, Palo Baskey performed the last rites and all connected rituals of Rani Hembram and became absolute owner of entire properties left by Rani Hembram and was paying rent till his death and the defendants being the agnates of Palo Baskey, who died issueless, succeeded the land owned by Palo Baskey and inherited the whole properties left by Rani Hembram and Palo Baskey including the own properties of Palo Baskey and being nearest agnate and are in possession of properties and are enjoying the same peacefully without any interruption from any corner and the defendants are paying rent to the government. Thus, the defendants have perfected their right, title and interest over the land by adverse possession also within the knowledge of all the villagers including plaintiffs without interruption. Thus, the defendants have perfected their right, title and interest over the land by adverse possession also within the knowledge of all the villagers including plaintiffs without interruption. It is further pleaded that the false case lodged by plaintiffs under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code resulted in acquittal of the defendants. 5. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed altogether eight issues. Issue Nos.5 and 6 are the main issues which are as under:- (5) Whether the marriage of Durgi Hansda was given in gharjamai form of marriage by R.T. Rani Hembram as per Santhal Customs? (6) Whether Durgi Hansda being adopted daughter of R.T. Rani Hembram and due to gharjamai marriage is possessing the suit lands? 6. The learned trial court believed the document of adoption-cum-gharjamai paper and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court, the defendants/respondents of this appeal filed an appeal before the District Judge, Pakur and the same was numbered as Title Appeal No.03 of 2007. The said appeal was transferred to the court of District Judge-I, Pakur and ultimately the same was heard and disposed of by the impugned judgment by the District Judge-I, Pakur. 7. The learned first appellate court below framed the following points for determination:- (1) Whether Durgi Hansda was adopted and given in gharjamai form of marriage by Rani Hembram and whether Rani Hembram was competent to adopt and give in gharjamai form of marriage the said Durgi Hansda under Santhal Customary law? (2) Whether Rani Hembrom had already given her entire lands on zimanama to Palo Baskey in 1940 and Palo Baskey was in possession and cultivating the suit property and he succeeded Rani Hembram on her death? 8. The learned court below made an independent appreciation of the evidence and considered that the witnesses of the plaintiff could not show properly as to who had put signatures on the said paper of gharjamai form and also considered that wife of the plaintiff has not changed her surname consequent upon her claim of adoption and failed to establish observation of custom of ‘Levedh Achur’ on any of land of Rani Hembram and considered that Ext. C is the document from which it appears that Rani Hembram had recognized Palo Baskey as her grandson and had given whole of her land to him on Jotzimma and allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. 9. Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the learned court below ought not have observed that the defendants have perfected their right, title and interest along with the possession over the land in dispute through Ext. C and also by adverse possession and it was incorrect finding of fact by the learned trial court. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that the learned first appellate court could not meet the reasoning given by the trial court in the judgment while decreeing the suit. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the record, I find that the learned first appellate court has made a threadbare discussion of the evidence in the record and on independent appreciation of the evidence, came to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the factum of adoption of his wife by Rani Hembram and giving the wife of the plaintiff in gharjamai form of marriage to the plaintiff and allowed the appeal. 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. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding the reasoning given by the trial being not met by the first appellate court is concerned, the same do not have any force as it is a settled principle of law that it is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidences adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidences on one side or rejecting the evidences on the other side. It is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere with such finding of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the trial court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arumugham v. Sundarambal, (1999) 4 SCC 350 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under in paragraph 14: “14. From the aforesaid judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Ramachandra Ayyar it is clear that this Court held that the second appellate court cannot interfere with the judgment of the first appellate court on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to close grips with the reasoning of the trial court. It is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence on one side or rejecting the evidence on the other side. It is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere with such findings of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the appellate trial court. … …”(Emphasis Supplied) 12. It is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere with such findings of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the appellate trial court. … …”(Emphasis Supplied) 12. After going through the record, this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 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. 13. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but in the circumstances without any cost. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith. Appeal dismissed.