JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2017 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Eviction Suit No. 256 of 1989 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur with the prayer: (i) for a decree to be passed in favour of the plaintiff declaring the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and the erroneous record of right of the suit land in the name of pro-forma defendant nos. 3 and 4 has no way affected the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and further settlement of suit land under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 is illegal and contrary to law and the same does not bind the plaintiff and also for decree of khas possession of the plaintiff. (ii) injunction and cost of the suit. 4. The case of the plaintiff is brief is that the suit land formerly belonged to recorded tenant Mangal Bhumij and others. They were unable to cultivate the land and pay rent to the proprietary; so they surrendered the land on 17.01.1941 by registered instrument in favour of the Raja Jagdish Chandra Dev Dhabaldev. The original plaintiffs’ father-in-law- late Moti Lal Mukhopadhyay made the prayer and the said land of 11 decimals was settled to the original plaintiffs’ father-in-law by Raja of Dhalbhum Estate by a indenture executed on 26.03.1942 having deed no. 2147 dated 13.07.1942 and the father-in-law of the plaintiff was put in possession of the said land. On 12.01.1951 the father-in-law of the plaintiff made an application to Raja of Dhalbhum Estate for extension of the settlement and it was duly granted. In or about 1980 the father-in-law of the plaintiff died and thereafter the plaintiffs’ husband inherited the suit property was in cultivating possession over the same till his death. The husband of the plaintiff died in the year 1983. Thereafter, the plaintiff inherited the suit property. In or about 1980 the father-in-law of the plaintiff died and thereafter the plaintiffs’ husband inherited the suit property was in cultivating possession over the same till his death. The husband of the plaintiff died in the year 1983. Thereafter, the plaintiff inherited the suit property. Due to old age, the plaintiff could not take up the cultivation of the said land and after death of her husband the lands could not be cultivated. In May, 1989 the plaintiff engaged plough man to cultivate the land and while the plaintiff was getting the lands to be ploughed, the principal defendants started obstruction which led the plaintiff to file the suit. The principal defendants have occupied the said plots of the plaintiff hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. The plaintiff further pleaded that the principal defendants have got no right, title and interest over the suit land. 5. The defendant-respondent no. 1 and the original defendant no. 2 filed their joint written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing the material facts. The defendant nos. 3 to 5 being pro-forma defendants did not appear before the trial court or the appellate court. 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following seven issues: (I) Whether the suit of plaintiff is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the plaintiff has arose valid cause of action for filing the suit? (III) Whether the suit is barred by law of specific relief and limitation act? (IV) Whether the suit is barred for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party? (V) Whether the plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land through deed no. 2147 dated 13.07.42 and further extension of settlement dated 12.01.51? (VI) Whether the suit is liable to be decreed? (VII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed for? 7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined altogether three witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 6 but the defendants have not proved any documents or examined any witnesses. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. 7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined altogether three witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 6 but the defendants have not proved any documents or examined any witnesses. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. V and VI together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish by cogent and convincing evidence that he and his predecessor in interest deserve right, title and interest over the suit property hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree or relief as sought for in the plaint. The learned trial court next took up issue no. IV and held that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. The learned trial court thereafter took up issue no. III and held that the present suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The learned trial court next took up issue no. I and II together and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the plaint hence, the plaintiff has no valid cause of action. The learned trial court lastly took up issue no. VII and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and dismissed the suit. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2017 in the court of Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 10. The learned first appellate court on the basis of the materials in the record and submissions before it, framed the following two points for determination: “(i) Whether the plaintiff/appellant has any right, title, interest over the suit land? (ii) Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled for a decree for Khas possession and permanent injunction against the principal defendants?” 11. 10. The learned first appellate court on the basis of the materials in the record and submissions before it, framed the following two points for determination: “(i) Whether the plaintiff/appellant has any right, title, interest over the suit land? (ii) Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled for a decree for Khas possession and permanent injunction against the principal defendants?” 11. The learned first appellate court took up both the points for determination together and made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable as there is no valid cause of action for filing the suit, the suit is barred by limitation and non-joinder of necessary party and that the plaintiff could not acquire right, title and interest over the suit land hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any decree of khas possession or permanent injunction and dismissed the appeal. 12. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that the finding of both of courts below is perverse as the courts below did not traverse the specific pleading and proof of plaintiff. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that concurrent findings of facts of the court below cannot be interfered by the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure; unless such finding of facts are perverse. It is a settled principle of law that so far as it relates to interfering with the finding of facts by exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the principle is that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law or if the finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or the evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those findings then the findings may be said to be perverse, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 216 , Para 28 of which reads as under: “28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. [Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685 ].” And the same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 483 and which has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy, 2021 SCC Online SC 694. 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court after carefully going through the materials in the record did not find the trial court or the first appellate court having excluded any admissible evidence or considered any inadmissible evidence in arriving at the finding. Similarly, the learned trial court or the learned first appellate court has not considered any surmises and presumption. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no perversity committed in the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below hence, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the same. Further, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 16. Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 17. Let the copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.