JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmick, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8. 2. This appeal was admitted on 9.1.2017 by formulating the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the learned lower appellate court is justified by reversing the decision of the trial court on the question of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the Schedule-E land without proper appreciation of the evidence on record? 3. For the purpose of deciding as to whether the instant appeal there is any substantial question of law, it is relevant to note the brief facts of the case. 4. The predecessor in interest of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 along with the Appellant No. 3 herein as the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule lands; for decree of Khas possession by evicting the defendants from the Schedules G, F and E lands; a decree for correction of the record of rights and costs of the suit. At this stage, it may be relevant herein to mention that there were as many as seven Schedules in the plaint marked as Schedules A, B, C, D, E and G lands. The legal heirs of the defendant No. 5, who was arrayed as defendant No. 5(a) to 5(h) along with the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 filed a joint written statement denying the statements and allegations made in the plaint as well as also challenging the maintainability of the suit. On the basis of the said pleadings as many as eight issues were framed which for the sake of convenience quoted herein below: 1. Whether the suit maintainable? 2. Whether suit is barred by law of limitation? 3. Whether court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. Whether plaintiffs has got right, title, interest over the suit land? 5. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief as prayed for? 8. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to? 5. 4. Whether plaintiffs has got right, title, interest over the suit land? 5. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief as prayed for? 8. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to? 5. Both oral and documentary evidences were led by the parties before the trial court and thereupon the trial court by the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2013 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The relevant paragraph No. 13 which contains the operative part of the reliefs so granted is quoted herein below: “In the result plaintiff suit is decreed on contest with cost by declaring right, title, interest of plaintiffs over the suit land. Plaintiffs also entitled to get recovery of khas possession of suits E, F and G schedule lands of plaint by evicting the defendants therefrom. Plaintiffs is also entitled to get Khatian over suit land expunging the name of defendants and Jatan Bewa and deceased father of plaintiffs from D and E schedule lands.” 6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied, the defendant Nos. 5(a) to 5(h) preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree insofar as the reliefs so granted to the plaint in respect to schedule E land. In so far as the reliefs granted as regards the other Schedule lands, the other defendants in the suit did not file any appeal and consequently, the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 321/1992 attained finality insofar as the other defendants were concerned. 7. The said appeal which was being filed by the respondents herein was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 112/2013. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties and taking into accounts the pleading and the evidence on records, reversed the finding of the trial court insofar as the schedule E land is concerned. By the judgment and order dated 4.6.2016, the First Appellant Court in doing so took into consideration the evidence on records both oral and documentary and thereupon, came to a finding that learned trial court had erred in holding that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the schedule E land and entitled to possession of the same. By the judgment and order dated 4.6.2016, the First Appellant Court in doing so took into consideration the evidence on records both oral and documentary and thereupon, came to a finding that learned trial court had erred in holding that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the schedule E land and entitled to possession of the same. In this regard, it may be relevant to also take note of that the plaintiffs had produced as many as three sale-deeds which were marked as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. The sale-deeds marked as Exts. 2 & 3 were not admitted into evidence on the ground that they were photocopies. As regards the Ext. 1, I have perused the contents of the same and it does not reflect that the said Ext. 1 is in respect of the schedule E land. As regards the other documentary evidence as placed by both the parties, there was no document of title placed by the plaintiffs to prove their title insofar as the schedule E land was concerned. As regards the possession, the plaintiffs own witnesses stated that the predecessor in interest of the defendant Nos. 5(a) to 5(h) was in possession of the suit schedule E land and had constructed six houses. The First Appellate Court had also taken note of the mutation entries and have also applied the law to the effect that the mutation does not confer any title. On the basis of appreciation of the said evidence by the First Appellate Court, the finding insofar as the schedule E land was concerned by the trial court, was reversed by the First Appellate Court. 8. On the basis of the said Judgment and decree dated 4.6.2016, the instant appeal has been filed on the above formulated substantial question of law. 9. A perusal of the said substantial question of law as formulated by this court is in effect as to whether the First Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is not res Integra that this court in exercise of jurisdiction of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot re-appreciate the evidence. 9. A perusal of the said substantial question of law as formulated by this court is in effect as to whether the First Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is not res Integra that this court in exercise of jurisdiction of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The jurisdiction of this court is only to see as to whether the court below had misread the evidence on record or has left out a vital evidence which would have an impact on the decision on facts arrived at by the courts below or there has been any perversity committed by the courts below. 10. I have perused the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and also have heard the learned counsel appearing on the appellants who could not point out any lapses on the part of the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence on record. 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find that there arises any substantial question of law in the facts of the instant case requiring interference to the impugned Judgment and decree dated 4.6.2016 passed in Title Appeal No. 112/2013 by the Court of the Civil Judge, Dhubri. 12. Consequently, the instant appeal stand dismissed. 13. Send the LCR back.