JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated October 9, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Malda in O. C. Appeal No. 24 of 2014 dismissing the suit and affirming the judgement and decree of the learned trial judge. 2. The case of the appellant in the trial Court was that the suit property originally belonged to one Raghubir Pandey who was the predecessor of the appellant. After his death his heirs got ancestral properties partitioned between themselves. Subsequently, the names of Bhubaneswar Pandey, Vinod Kumar Pandey (the plaintiff) and Aswini Kumar Pandey were recorded in the record of rights. The appellant was in possession since 1992. Aswini Pandey was ousted from the suit land by the law relating to adverse possession and the appellant acquired good title over the property. After the death of Bhubaneswar Pandey, Aswini Pandey disposed of substantial portion of the land in favour of the respondents by several registered sale deeds without the consent of the appellant. These deeds therefore were acted upon and the respondents were also in possession. However, on November 30, 2011 the respondents raised a mini structure on the suit land and started creating problem. In the month of December 2011 they started expanding the construction in the suit land. The appellant prayed for a decree of recovery of khas possession and mandatory injunction to pull down the unauthorised possession of the suit land. 3. The appellant lost the suit ex parte. From this he filed an appeal. 4. The learned judge of the Court of appeal below observed that the sale deeds produced by the appellant were not related to him. Even his name was not mentioned. If the case of the appellant is that he was in possession and the defendants were not in possession of the suit property he could not pray for recovery of khas possession in the same breath. There has been no evidence as to how Aswini Kumar Pandey was ousted from the suit land and how the appellant had acquired good title over the same by operation of the law relating to adverse possession. There has been no evidence as to how Aswini Kumar Pandey was ousted from the suit land and how the appellant had acquired good title over the same by operation of the law relating to adverse possession. The Court of appeal below affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the appellant had failed to establish that the suit land originally belonged to Bhubaneswar Pandey and that the appellant had no right, title and interest in the suit property. He has not produced any document for establishing his legal character to the property. Recording the name of the appellant in the record of rights by itself cannot vest the property in the name of the recorded person. It has also been recorded by the learned judge of the Court of appeal below that the appellant has also not prayed for declaration of his title and legal character in respect of the suit property. The appeal was dismissed. 5. We have heard Mr. Prasad, the learned advocate for the appellant, perused the plaint and copy of the evidence. We find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. There is no infirmity in the judgements of either of the Courts. 6. We also agree with the findings of the Court below and we add that the appellant could not even establish his prior possession of the suit property before November 2011 when allegedly the respondents made a construction on the suit land. There was nothing before the Court from which the Court could even remotely hold that the suit land belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. That being so and in the absence of any prayer seeking declaration of the appellant’s title over the suit property the conclusion reached by the Courts below was inescapable. 7. We find nothing in the judgements of the either of the Courts below calling for judicial intervention in second appeal. 8. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.