JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. By means of present writ petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the judgment and order dated 30.11.2017, passed by the Board of Revenue, Dehradun in Second Appeal no. 41/2015-16; judgment and order dated 29.09.2015, passed by Addl. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital, in Revenue Appeal no. 32/2013-14/4-14-15 and judgment dated 06.01.2014, passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Almora in Revenue Case no. 54/2005-06. A further prayer has been sought for decreeing the suit of the petitioner / plaintiff bearing revenue case no. 54/2005-06. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land situated in Village Papersali, Tehsil and District Almora in Khata No. 1 Khasra No. 128 to 130, 132, 134 to 206, 208 to 216 and 217, total measuring 1.705 Hectare, was initially recorded in the name of American Methodist Mission (respondent no. 2 herein), since long. Said land was leased to one Mr. George Naderer by its true owner respondent no. 2 by way of a lease deed in the year 1976 for a period of 20 years which was to expire in the year 1996. At the time of granting lease deed, the possession of the aforesaid land was also handed over to the lessee. In pursuance of said lease deed, Mr. George Naderer came in possession of the said land and started residing in a house called “Deodars” along with outhouses in the leased premises allotted vide the same lease deed. Consequent to the grant of lease in favour of Mr. George Naderer, possession was delivered to the lessee along with structures standing thereon. Mr. Naderer due to his weak health requested the petitioner through letter dated 16.07.1971 to live with him. Petitioner accepted said request and started residing with Mr. Naderer since then. Petitioner continuously resided with Naderer family till the death of Mr. Naderer in the year 1990 and thereafter till the death of Mrs. Naderer in the year 1993. During her lifetime, Mr. Naderer executed a Will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing all her belongings. After her death in the year 1993, petitioner applied for a letter of administration before competent court at Almora, which was accordingly granted in his favour. In execution of the Will, the leased property and belongings left by Naderers were handed over to the petitioner. Naderer executed a Will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing all her belongings. After her death in the year 1993, petitioner applied for a letter of administration before competent court at Almora, which was accordingly granted in his favour. In execution of the Will, the leased property and belongings left by Naderers were handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner came in full, actual, physical and independent possession of the said property without there being any interruption at the hands of true owner. Since at the time of death of Mrs. Naderer in the year 1993, petitioner was occupying the leased property which after the death of Mrs. Naderer expired automatically, the owner of the property i.e. American Methodist Mission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Mission’) did not want the petitioner to continue as an occupier in the leased out property. The Mission (respondent no. 2) filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner, being Civil Suit No. 20 of 1993. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Almora on 29.07.1997. 3. After the right of the petitioner over the property had matured, he filed a suit, being Revenue Suit no. 54 / 2005-06, under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the year 2006 before Assistant Collector, Bara Mandal, Almora seeking declaration of his bhumidhari rights on the basis of long, uninterrupted, adverse possession over the property in question. Notices were sent to the Mission, who filed its written statement initially admitting the facts of the case. Later on, the admissions were withdrawn by filing an application for amendment. During the pendency of the suit, respondent no. 4 (Executive Board, Board of Methodist Church in India), who has nothing to do with the property of the Mission, without title, right and authority sold the said property to respondent nos. 5 and 6 vide sale deed dated 19.01.2009. When the petitioner came to know about the fraudulent sale executed by respondent no. 4 claiming itself to be owner of property of respondent no. 2, the petitioner and other affected persons filed their objection in mutation proceedings. Learned Mutation Court / Tehsildar, Almora rejected the objections of the petitioner and other objectors and passed the order of mutation in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. 4 claiming itself to be owner of property of respondent no. 2, the petitioner and other affected persons filed their objection in mutation proceedings. Learned Mutation Court / Tehsildar, Almora rejected the objections of the petitioner and other objectors and passed the order of mutation in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. Against the order of mutation, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Collector, Almora, which too was dismissed. Against the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Naintial. Said revision was dismissed with the observation that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and it does not decide the title of any party. 4. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, being WPMS No. 1015 of 2013, Richard Wheeler Vs. Board of Methodist Church in India and others. The same was dismissed by this Court on 15.07.2013 holding that Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act does not bar any party to file a suit and since the petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration of his rights, therefore, in view of Section 40A the mutation proceedings have no bearing. Then the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition, being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37630 of 2013, which was dismissed on 02.01.2014. Thereafter, plaintiff / petitioner impleaded the seller and purchaser as defendant no. 4, 5 and 6 (respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein) in his suit which was pending in the court of Assistant Collector, Bara Mandal, Almora. The newly impleaded defendants / respondents filed their written statements denying the plaint allegations, inter alia, on the grounds of transfer of property and further set up a case of licence against the plaintiff. Defendant nos. 5 and 6 (purchasers) had also filed their counter claim on the basis of alleged sale deed seeking relief of eviction against the plaintiff / petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Collector having heard learned counsel for the parties and after framing the issues dismissed the suit of plaintiff / petitioner for declaration of rights and allowed the counter claim of respondent nos. 5 and 6 vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2014 negating the case of adverse possession of the plaintiff and further relying upon the sale deed in favour of defendants / respondent nos. 5 and 6 as having been executed by defendant / respondent no. 5 and 6 vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2014 negating the case of adverse possession of the plaintiff and further relying upon the sale deed in favour of defendants / respondent nos. 5 and 6 as having been executed by defendant / respondent no. 4, being an authority of defendant / respondent no. 2. Two revenue appeals, being Appeal nos. 31 of 2013-14 and 32 of 2013-14, Richard Wheeler Vs State of Uttarakhand and others, were filed before the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. Appeal no. 31 of 2013-14 was filed against the dismissal of the suit and Appeal no. 32 of 2013-14 was filed against the decree of counter claim. Learned Addl. Commission vide common judgment and order dated 29.09.2016 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff / appellant filed against the dismissal of suit and allowed the other filed against the decree in favour of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 allowing eviction of the plaintiff / appellant (petitioner herein). 6. Against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2016, petitioner preferred a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, being Second Appeal No. 41 of 2015-16, Richard Wheeler Vs. State of Uttarakhand, through Collector, Almora & others. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 also preferred two Second Appeals, being S.A. No. 163 of 2015-16 and S.A. No. 164 of 2015-16, Aman Deep Singh & others Vs. Richard Wheeler & others. Second appeal no. 163 of 2015-16 was against the dismissal of counter claim by the First Appellate Authority while S.A. no. 164 of 2015-16 was in regard to the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff / appellant. The learned Board of Revenue vide common judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 dismissed Second Appeal no. 41 of 2015-16 and allowed the S.A. Nos. 163 & 164 both of 2015-16, setting aside the order dated 29.09.2015, passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Nainital and affirmed the judgment and order dated 06.01.2014, passed by the Assistant Collector, I Class, Almora. Hence, present writ petition. 7. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Assistant Collector, Almora while dismissing the suit had recorded categorical findings. Such categorical findings were neither set aside nor did the First Appellate Authority record any independent findings. Hence, present writ petition. 7. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Assistant Collector, Almora while dismissing the suit had recorded categorical findings. Such categorical findings were neither set aside nor did the First Appellate Authority record any independent findings. The Second Appellate Authority having considered the fact that the First Appellate Authority has committed illegality in allowing the appeal in a cursory and cryptic manner set aside the judgment and order dated 29.09.2015 and allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2017. Second appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does lie under Section 31(4) as per the old provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there is no requirement of framing the substantial question of law by the Second Appellate Authority. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand (Previously State of Uttar Pradesh) Vs. Mohan Singh & others, (2012) 13 SCC 281 as well as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Baikunth Nath Kaushik Vs. Anand Swaroop Kaushik (Deceased) through LRs, 2006 (1) U.D. 525 . 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in possession of property in question for more than 12 years and had matured his rights on the basis of long uninterrupted adverse possession. He would further submit that judgment dated 30.11.2017 was passed without considering the documents available on record and even without reversing the finding passed by the First Appellate Authority, which is the last court of fact. He would further submit that the Second Appellate Authority was duty bound to reverse the findings of First Appellate Authority. It is contended that the seller of the property in question and the Mission are two separate entities and has nothing to do with each other. Thus, when said finding has categorically been dealt by the Additional Commissioner, Nainital in order dated 29.09.2015, there was no occasion for the Chairman, Revenue Board in totally ignoring the said finding. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone and the order dated 30.11.2017, passed by the Chairman, Revenue Board, Dehradun is liable to be set aside. 10. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone and the order dated 30.11.2017, passed by the Chairman, Revenue Board, Dehradun is liable to be set aside. 10. Admittedly, the suit property was leased out by its owner in the year 1976 in favour of Mr. George Naderer, who came in possession as a lessee of the suit property. According to the petitioner himself, Mr. Naderer wrote a letter to him on 16.07.2971, inviting him to live with Naderer family. After the death of Mr. Naderer, petitioner continued to live with Mrs. Naderer, who executed a Will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing all her belongings in the year 1993. On the strength of said Will, the petitioner obtained a letter of administration in regard to the property of Mrs. Naderer. The fact remains that the possession of Mr. and Mrs. Naderer was as a lessee. The lease in favour of George Naderer expired in the year 1996. The petitioner lived with the Nadeerer family. It is also an admitted case that the petitioner after the death of Mr. and Mrs. Nadeerer and on expiry of the lease in the year 1996 did not return the suit property to its real owner and subsequently filed a suit in the year 2006 for declaration of his rights claiming adverse possession of the suit property. It is settled position in law that a permissible possession never turned hostile unless the person came into permissible possession return back the possession to the real owner of its property. 11. Besides this the petitioner did not fulfill the essential ingredients of the adverse possession in his plaint. It is settled position in law that the plaintiff has to prove its case and he cannot succeed on the weakness of his opponent. For showing claim of adverse possession plaintiff has to fulfill the essential ingredients viz. (i) on what date he came into possession, (ii) what was the nature of his possession (iii) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party (iv) how long his possession has continued, and (v) his possession was open and undisturbed. Neither is there a pleading nor has the plaintiff led any evidence to fulfill the essential ingredients in support of his claim of adverse possession. 12. Neither is there a pleading nor has the plaintiff led any evidence to fulfill the essential ingredients in support of his claim of adverse possession. 12. A perusal of the plaint would reveal that none of the ingredients as aforementioned is pleaded in the plaint. It is also settled position in law that no evidence can be looked into beyond the pleadings. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bondar Singh & others Vs. Nihal Singh & others, (2003) 4 SCC 161 and Kottinokkula Murali Krishna Vs. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao & others, (2010) 1 SCC 466 , has categorically held that evidence beyond the pleadings can neither be permitted to be adduced nor can such evidence be taken into consideration. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Annakili Vs. A. Vedanayagam & others, (2007) 14 SCC 308 , has also held as under: “24. Claim by adverse possession has two elements: (1) the possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and (2) the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well-settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must continue in the said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession, it is trite for a period of more than 12 years without anything more does not ripen into a title.” 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shayam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 considering the nine-Judge Bench judgment in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 , has held that the remedy under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India is not an appealable remedy and can be used only in a very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned and where there is some perversity in the order passed by the court. 15. 15. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the authorities below that the petitioner failed to prove his adverse possession over the suit property. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Unless the petitioner proves that the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below are perverse or based on no evidence such findings cannot be set aside by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 16. Unless the petitioner succeeds in convincing this Court in regard to the three ingredients as mentioned above necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court should be loath to exercise such jurisdiction to differ with the reasons and the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority or court of law. 17. The powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. 18. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act like an appellate court. In the instant case the petitioner has failed to show any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the judgments impugned. Besides this, the petitioner has also failed to show any miscarriage of justice occasioned with him. 19. In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, I do not find any perversity and illegality in the impugned judgment. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.