D/L.3. August 31, 2026. MNS. SAT No. 141 of 2023 + CAN 1 of 2023 Sri Biren Pramanik and others Vs. Sri Ramsadhan Singhababu and others Mr. Pradip Kumar Patra, Ms. Mekhala Kar, Advs. … for the appellants. 1. Liberty is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to carry out necessary rectification to the preamble of the memorandum of appeal by incorporating the name of learned Trial Judge. 2. Further leave is granted to the said learned Advocate to carry out the necessary rectifications in the cause title of the memorandum by indicating the capacity in which the parties litigated in the trial Court. 3. Insofar as the other defects are concerned, the records shall be sent down for correction of the first appellate court’s decree. 4. Furthermore, a copy of the order passed during pendency of the title appeal is handed over to us, from which it transpires that the original respondent no. 1, namely, Sudhir Kr. Singhababu, had died during pendency of the said appeal and his heirs and legal representatives were already substituted in the first appellate court, who are parties to the present appeal. 2 5. In such view of the matter, the records be also sent down for effecting necessary corrections to the first appellate court’s decree by incorporating the names of substituted heirs and legal representatives of late Sudhir Kr. Singhababu. 6. We deem it unnecessary for any further application be filed in that regard. 7. We take up the appeal for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby both the courts below decreed a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiffs/respondents, for permanent injunction for eviction of the defendants-appellants as trespassers. 9. We find from the observations of both the courts below that they came to the concurrent finding that on the strength of a sale deed produced by the plaintiffs in their favour, coupled with extracts of the LR records of rights as well as khajna receipts, the plaintiffs were able to prove better title than the defendants in the suit property. 10. As opposed thereto, the defendants only took a plea that the local villagers hold a “Durga Puja” annually on the suit property as well as other cultural and social activities thereon. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that if the CS records of rights were looked into, the case of the plaintiffs would have been demolished. 3 12. Secondly, it is contended that the plaintiffs’ vendor’s title could not be established before either of the courts below, thus diluting the case of title made out by the plaintiffs. 13. However, the scope of a second appeal is extremely limited. 14. We find that both the courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact and taken a view which was probable on the evidence which was produced before both the courts below. 15. It is trite law that the appellate court, more so the second appellate court, interferes only in cases of patent perversity or palpable error of law and does not disturb a probable view taken by both the courts below merely because another view is possible from the materials on record. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs were able to establish better title than the defendants before the courts below on the basis of the plaintiffs’ title deed, LR records of rights and Khajna receipts. 16. As such, we do not find any question of law involved in the present appeal at all, let alone any substantial question of law. 17. Thus, SAT No. 141 of 2023 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 18. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2023 stands disposed of as well. 19. There will be no order as to costs. 4 20. Urgent Photostat certified copies, if applied for, be furnished to the parties subject to compliance of due formalities. (Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)