JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 86/2013 whereby and where under, by the said judgment of concurrence, the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-V, Dhanbad in Title (P) Suit No.135 of 2005 dated 27.06.2013. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit property was originally purchased by Mr. Paramjeet Marwa and Mr. Bhupendra Gerwal vide six different sale deeds. The said Parmajeet Marwa and Bhupendra Gerwal sold and transferred the suit land to Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh transferred the same to Sri Ram Swarap Singh. Ram Swarap Singh sold the land to the plaintiffs being Urmila Devi Mittal and Smt. Anjana Mittal. The plaintiff no.3 also purchased the part of the suit land from Naresh Kumar Gupta and the plaintiffs Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Anup Kumar Agarwal purchased part of the suit land from Mahendra Singh and Kartar Singh and they have been coming in peaceful possession of the suit land but suddenly in the month of February, 2005, the defendants started to disturb their possession and the plaintiffs made complaint to the Superintendent of Police and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated but subsequently, the same was dropped and the defendants ousted the plaintiffs forcibly. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that originally there was six defendants in the suit but subsequently, purchasers was later on impleaded as defendant nos.7 to 14. 4. In their written statement, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and denied the claim of title by the plaintiffs. The defendants specifically pleaded that Paramjeet Marwa and Bupendra Gerwal never purchased the suit land from the recorded raiyat but they purchased from some other person who was not the recorded raiyat. Hence, by such purchase, Paramjeet Marwa and Bupendra Gerwal never got any possession over the suit land. 5. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed seven issues. It is apparent that inadvertently the trial court numbered the issue number (III) twice as the issue number (IV) also. Hence, by such purchase, Paramjeet Marwa and Bupendra Gerwal never got any possession over the suit land. 5. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed seven issues. It is apparent that inadvertently the trial court numbered the issue number (III) twice as the issue number (IV) also. Thus in fact the trial court has framed the 6 issues, as the issue numbers 3 and 4 are one and the same. The issues framed by the trial court are as under :- (I) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (II) Whether plaintiffs have right, title, interest & possession over the suit land? (III) Whether plaintiffs have been forcefully dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants? (IV) Whether plaintiffs have been forcefully dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants? (V) Whether defendants have manufactured forged and fabricated as well as fictitious deeds? (VI) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession over the suit land by evicting the defendants? (VII) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any relief or reliefs? 6. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. (II), (III), (IV) & (VI) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that as though in the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that Paramjeet Marwa and Bhupendra Gerwal had purchased plot nos.13 and 14 of Khata No.32 by six sale deeds but the plaintiffs could produce only one sale deed marked Ext. 6/C but that too was not executed by the recorded tenant but was executed by somebody else being Manu Mian and others who are not the recorded raiyats in favour of Paramjeet Marwa and Bhupendra Gerwal. 6/C but that too was not executed by the recorded tenant but was executed by somebody else being Manu Mian and others who are not the recorded raiyats in favour of Paramjeet Marwa and Bhupendra Gerwal. The learned trial court considered that admittedly, the vendors are neither the tenant nor the legal representatives of the recorded tenant and the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title and went on to hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the authority of their vendors to execute the sale deed with respect to the suit land and the plaintiffs were not able to prove their possession or the possession of their vendors over the suit property and the learned trial court found and held that the plaintiffs have no valid cause of action for the suit nor they have right, title and interest over the suit property and they failed to prove that they have forcibly dispossessed from the suit land. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue no. (V) and observed that when the plaintiffs have failed their case, it is redundant to discuss whether the documents produced by the defendants manufactured are forged and fabricated. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue no. (I) and (VII) together and decided the same against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.86 of 2013 in the court of District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 8. The learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and considering the fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title and possession of their vendors; concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right, title and interest over the suit land and taking into consideration the admission of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land since 2005, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Kaustav Roy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below have failed to consider the evidence in the record in its right perspective and failed to consider the veracity of the claim of the defendants that they have purchased the suit land from the successor-in-interest of the khatiyani raiyat namely Karan Das and Manohar Das who were the successor-in-interest of the recorded tenant namely Manohar Das, Lakhan Das and Haripado Das. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside by formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that as rightly observed by both the courts below, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title in respect of the suit land as they have failed to produce any document to show as to how they acquired the title over the suit land when neither they nor their vendors are anyway related to the recorded tenant nor they or their vendors ever purchased the suit land from the recorded tenant. Hence, this Court do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court. 11. After carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court was not done by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material. Nor the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court being the final court of facts outrageously defies the logic so as to suffer from irrationality incurring the vice of being perverse. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 13. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 14. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith.