JUDGMENT : This Second Appeal is filed challenging the legality of the judgment dated 15.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.51 of 2014 which has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2014 and 04.07.2014, respectively passed in Title Suit No.260 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Munsif-II, Ranchi. 2. The case of the plaintiff in the court-below was that as an owner of the land appertaining to Khewat No.39/2, Khata No.699, Plot No.6155 and 6156 admeasuring an area of 9 decimals and 5 decimals, respectively executed a sale deed in favour of the respondents/defendants Dhirja Mahto and Duryodhan Mahto in the year 2002 in respect of 3 decimals of land from Plot No.6155 and 2 decimals from Plot No.6156 @ Rs.2700/- per decimals. It is further contended that at the time of execution and registration of sale deed the defendants promised and agreed to pay the consideration amount at their residence but later on they denied to pay the same even after issuing a legal notice to them. The plaintiff has further contended that on the basis of the sale deed No.6956 when the Circle Officer, Sonahatu went to the land in question for measurement, he raised an objection and in consequence the Circle Officer has returned without measurement on 29.11.2007 and 05.12.2007 giving rise to a cause of action in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 3. The defendants appeared in the suit and they pleaded that the suit is not maintainable as barred by law of limitation and principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. 4. The respondents/defendants asserted that the plaintiff was in need of money and accordingly he approached the defendants and received consideration amount of Rs.13,500/- at the time of marriage of his daughter from them and executed a sale deed on 10.06.2002 in their favour. They asserted that the plaintiff has received the full consideration amount from them and after receipt of the entire amount the plaintiff himself purchased the Government stamp, got the sale deed drafted and typed and produced before the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi and accordingly the same was registered and since execution of the sale deed on 10.06.2002, they have been coming in peaceful cultivating possession of the same. They denied about service of any notice. They denied about service of any notice. They further stated that after execution of the sale deed they applied before the Circle Officer, Sonahatu for actual measurement of the land on which after serving general notice on 29.11.2007 and 05.12.2007 the Anchal Amin measured the land in presence of the parties and submitted his report on 01.12.2007 which was accepted by the Circle Officer, Sonahatu and on the basis of the above facts it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for adjudication by the court below : “I. Is the suit as framed maintainable ? II. Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action for the suit? III. Is the suit barred by law of limitation and adverse possession? IV. Is the suit barred by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? V. Whether the defendants have not paid the consideration money of the sale deed executed in their favour in the year 2002 in spite of giving legal notice by the plaintiff to the defendants? VI. Whether the sale deed no.6956 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants is fit to be declared null and void due to non-payment of consideration money? VII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as claimed?” 5. The plaintiff has examined three witnesses and the respondent/defendants have examined four witnesses. The appellant/plaintiff has testified in examination-in-chief that he sold 3 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No.699 Plot No.6155 and 2 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No.6156 of the same Khata in the year 2002 @ Rs.2700/- per decimal and executed sale deed on 10.06.2002. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his daughter Sarita was married and there was an agreement to sell the land for the purpose to meet the expenses of the marriage ceremony of his daughter and he has also admitted to have signed on each and every page of the document and that he made his signature after the perusal of the contents. All the witnesses examined by the defendants/respondents have testified in total consonance and proximity with each other that the appellant/plaintiff approached the defendants/respondents at the time of engagement of his daughter and after having received the entire consideration amount to the tune of Rs.13,500/- and executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants/respondents on 08.06.2002. All the witnesses examined by the defendants/respondents have testified in total consonance and proximity with each other that the appellant/plaintiff approached the defendants/respondents at the time of engagement of his daughter and after having received the entire consideration amount to the tune of Rs.13,500/- and executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants/respondents on 08.06.2002. The trial court after considering the evidence of the witnesses and the documents and discussing the issues framed therein came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled for any relief in the suit and accordingly the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved with this, the appellant filed Title Appeal No.51 of 2014 which was decided by the judgment dated 15.02.2016 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi. The appellate court has also entered into the issues and discussed the evidences and witnesses in detail and came to the finding that no cause of interference with the trial court judgment is made out and accordingly the appeal was dismissed on contest. 6. Mr. Rajan Sahay, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the trial court and the appellate court not considered the deposition of the witnesses and the documents in the right perspective and has wrongly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal. He further argues that it is common in the rural areas that such type of agreement are being entered into and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by both the courts. 7. This Court has looked into the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court and found that the trial court as well as the appellate court have considered each aspect of the matter minutely and it has been discussed threadbare in both the judgments and both the fact finding courts have come to the concurrent finding and looking into the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is not inclined to discuss the evidences adduced by the parties in the court below. No substantial question of law has been raised in this Second Appeal and accordingly, S.A. No. 258 of 2016 stands dismissed.