JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard and disposed of ex-parte against the respondents. 3. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.09.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh in Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2009 by which the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the said Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2009. 4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the appellants were petitioners in the court of Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh and the appellants filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in connection with Execution Case No. 05 of 1999 claiming and asserting that the premises in question which was under execution, belongs to him and he has all legal right, title, interest and possession over the same. The learned Munsif, after considering the materials available in the record, held that the appellants have failed to prove his independent right, title and interest and also his possession over the premises in execution and the decree under execution is executable against the plaintiff and dismissed the Misc. Case No. 14 of 2005 arising out of Execution Case No. 05 of 1999. It is the further the case of the plaintiffs that his father purchased the suit property from Sovana Bhattacharya the grandmother of the decree holder of the said execution case and Sovana Devi purchased the said house but as she was in need of money she sold it for a paltry sum of Rs. 91/-. It is also the case of the appellant-petitioner that after the said purchase, the old house which was standing at the time of purchase, was demolished and the father of the appellant-petitioner reconstructed the house and inducted tenants in the said house from time to time. The father of the appellants died in the year 1994 and thereafter the appellant-petitioner being the legal heir, came in possession of the land. The father of the appellants died in the year 1994 and thereafter the appellant-petitioner being the legal heir, came in possession of the land. It is also the case of the appellant-petitioner that the said property was mutated in the name of the appellants by the Municipality as well as the Circle Officer and the appellant-petitioner was paying municipal as well as ground rent. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent-decree holder that the Ext.7 is the forged and fabricated documents and the said sale-deed was never executed by Sovana Devi. The sale of property for Rs. 2,000/- on 20.06.1939 could not have been sold by Sovana Devi for a paltry sum of Rs. 91/- in the year 1952 and the said contention of the appellant-petitioner is highly improbable and the appellant-petitioner never resided in the said house rather the appellant-petitioner was residing at Okni in a rented premises and after being evicted therefrom, the appellant-petitioner shifted to another locality. The Municipal Authority in collusion with the appellant-petitioner, without the process of law, mutated his name and on that basis, the appellant-petitioner paid rent but that order has been set at rest by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2704 of 2006. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Hazaribag in Misc. Case No. 14 of 2005 arising out of Execution Case No. 05 of 1999, the appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2009 before the Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned court below by the impugned judgment. 7. The learned court below framed the following three questions for decision:- (1) Whether the present Misc. Case in maintainable? (2) Whether the petitioner has got independent right, title and interest and possession over the decreetal property? (3) Whether the decree of Exe. Case No. 5/99 is executable against the petitioner? 8. The learned First Appellate Court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record i.e. nine witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant and also the documents filed by them which were marked Ext.1 to Ext.8 as well as the five witnesses (DW-1 to DW-5) and the documents which were marked Ext.A to W series by the defendants. 8. The learned First Appellate Court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record i.e. nine witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant and also the documents filed by them which were marked Ext.1 to Ext.8 as well as the five witnesses (DW-1 to DW-5) and the documents which were marked Ext.A to W series by the defendants. The learned First Appellate Court did not believe the contention of the appellant-petitioner that the property which was acquired in the year 1939 at the price of Rs. 2,000/- was sold in the year 1952 for a consideration of only Rs. 91/-. Hence, it appeared to the learned First Appellate Court very improbable that the applicant and also his father resided in the said house. 9. The learned First Appellate Court considered that title of Sovana Devi is not in dispute. The learned First Appellate Court also considered that there is no corroborative document to show the nature of possession of the appellant-petitioner and from the date of the alleged execution of Ext.9 which is an unregistered sale-deed, the applicant or his father ever came in possession rather the evidence discussed shows that in the year 2005 the applicant was residing in a tenanted premises from where he has been evicted. The learned First Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that Ext.9 is a forged document and it is never seen the light of the day and it was never executed by Sovana Devi. The learned First Appellate Court also observed that the judgment debtor and the applicants-appellants are in league with each other in order to defeat a rightful decree granted by a competent court of law, which also has attained finality as has been confirmed by the appellate courts and thus, dismissed the appeal. 10. Mr. Md. Zafar Alam learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned First Appellate Court has misconstrued the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it has misinterpreted the Ext.9. It is next submitted that the learned First Appellate Court ought to have looked into the Ext.9 being the unregistered sale-deed for the collateral purpose and the court of appeal ought to have held that in the absence of any cogent evidence, the finding of the trial court with respect to fraud having been committed, is erroneous. It is next submitted that the learned First Appellate Court ought to have looked into the Ext.9 being the unregistered sale-deed for the collateral purpose and the court of appeal ought to have held that in the absence of any cogent evidence, the finding of the trial court with respect to fraud having been committed, is erroneous. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside after formulating substantial question of law. 11. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the learned courts below have elaborately discussed the evidence in the record and have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to establish his right, title, interest or possession over the suit land and such finding of fact arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity as such finding of fact is not arrived at by ignoring or excluding irrelevant materials or by taking into consideration irrelevant materials nor the finding is so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed ex-parte. 13. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith.