M/L.19. June 9, 2025. MNS. SA No. 38 of 2023 + CAN 1 of 2023 Kalipada Ghosh Vs. Debasish Das and another Mr. Anit Kumar Rakshit, Mr. Subham Rakshit … for the appellant. 1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby a decree of eviction was granted against the appellant by both the courts below under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to argue that the ownership of the plaintiffs have not been established properly. 3. However, we find from the concurrent findings of the courts below that upon considering the elaborate arguments of the parties as well as the evidence and cross-examination of the DW 1 (the defendant/appellant himself), as well as the original gift deed marked as Exhibit 8 and the LR parchas marked as Exhibit 1-series and also the plot information slips issued in the year 2014 and marked as Exhibit 2, the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have ownership and 2 possession of the three satak of suit property under plot no. 296, which comprises of three pucca rooms, and accordingly granted a decree of eviction against the appellant. 4. We find that the question sought to be raised is at best a question of fact requiring a re-appreciation of the evidence and as such, no substantial question of law is involved in the mater. 5. Hence, SA No. 38 of 2023 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2023 is also dismissed. 7. There will be no order as to costs. (Uday Kumar, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)