JUDGMENT : (EASWARAN S., J.) The appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.278/2017 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Kasaragod. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Deyyakku. Thereafter, her right devolved upon the plaintiffs and the 7 th defendant. On 25.8.2017, the plaintiffs came to know that Doomanna Rai, father of defendants 1 to 6, fraudulently executed settlement deed No.260/2001 dated 24.1.2001 of SRO, Badiadka. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that Doomanna Rai has no right over the plaint A schedule property and, therefore, the settlement deed is not genuine and is liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs sent a registered notice on 22.8.2017 calling the defendants to effect partition of the A schedule property, which was refused by the defendants and hence, the suit was filed. The defendants appeared and contested the suit, pointing out that their predecessor in interest, namely Doomanna Rai, was in absolute ownership and possession of the suit property. Pattas were issued in his name and later, a settlement deed was executed in favour of the defendants 1 to 6. The plaintiffs themselves knew about the said settlement deed and no steps were taken by them to question the same. It was further contended that before the repeal of the Aliyasanthana Act, Doomanna Rai filed O.S No.34/1975, a partition suit, on the files of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod and a final decree of partition was passed on 19.6.2009 and an advocate commissioner was appointed to the suit, who visited the property for demarcation of the property, and that the plaintiffs knew about the filing of the suit and passing of the final decree. 2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A15 documents were produced and marked, and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 were produced and marked. 1 st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the 2nd defendant was examined as DW1. 3. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, framed the following issues for consideration: “1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree to set aside settlement deed No.260/2001 of SRO, Badiadka? 2) Whether the plaint A schedule property is partible? 3) If so, what are the respective shares entitled by the parties? 4) What are the equities and reservations if any entitled by the parties? 2) Whether the plaint A schedule property is partible? 3) If so, what are the respective shares entitled by the parties? 4) What are the equities and reservations if any entitled by the parties? 5) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and under the principle of estoppel? 6) Whether the court fee paid in the suit is correct? 7) Reliefs and costs?” 4. After appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that Exts.B1 to B4 documents established the title of defendants 1 to 6 over the plaint schedule property. The derivation of the title over the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs was solely based on Exts.A1 and A11 documents, which did not relate to Deyyakku, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, and thus, the trial court found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get a decree to set aside the settlement deed. On further appreciation, the trial court proceeded to hold that the plaintiffs having not established their right, title, or interest over the plaint schedule property, a suit for partition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Though the plaintiffs carried forward the matter before the Sub Court, Kasaragod, the appeal was also dismissed. 5. Heard Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the finding of the trial court as well as the first appellate court, by appreciating the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, is perverse and, therefore, it requires reconsideration by this Court. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs and the defendants are descendants of a common ancestor, namely Doomakke, who is the mother of Deyyakku and Doomanna Rai, and that with reference to the categoric admission of DW1 that the parties were governed by the Aliyasanthana Act and that in the light of the fact that the said Act has been repelled, the appellants/plaintiffs and the defendants would take in the rights over the property as tenants in common and therefore, are entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property. 7. Having considered the submissions raised across the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs, this Court is not persuaded to admit the appeal, especially since no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 7. Having considered the submissions raised across the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs, this Court is not persuaded to admit the appeal, especially since no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The question before this Court is as to whether the plaintiffs can claim any right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property. Both courts have concurrently found that the document by which the plaintiffs traced their right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property does not relate to the plaint schedule property. On the contrary, defendants 1 to 6 were successful in establishing the derivation of the title of Doomanna Rai, their predecessor-in-interest, which is traceable to Patta Nos.100 & 67. Thereafter, the property being devolved upon them by virtue of the settlement deed, the defendants were successful in establishing the derivation of title to the plaint schedule property through a valid document. It is trite law that this Court can interfere with the finding of facts by the trial court only if the same is vitiated by perverse appreciation. On a close perusal of the findings of the trial court as well as by the first appellate court, this Court is not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court is perverse. Inasmuch as the appellants/plaintiffs having failed to establish their right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property, it cannot be said under any circumstances that the finding of fact rendered by the trial court as confirmed by the first appellate court is perverse. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal lacks merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.