The court cannot reverse findings of lower appellate court on facts.

1. The plaintiffs-appellants have impugned the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below in a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property.

2. The point for discussion is as to whether the courts below properly appreciated the evidence on record, which called for interference by the High Court in this second appeal.

3. Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that both the courts below have misappreciated the crucial documents, namely, Exts. 2 series and 3 series and thus committed an apparent error of law. His second contention is that the courts below have also misconstrued the evidence to reject the contention of the plaintiffs-appellants that they have acquired title by adverse possession.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has contended that until and unless the High Court is of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the courts below are perverse, no interference is called for. He further contends that in the present case the courts after proper scrutinising the evidence on record have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and inference drawn from the Khatian in the case cannot be interfered in second appeal.

5. The trial court has considered Exts. 2 series and 3 series in Paragraph 5 of its judgment in deciding issues no. IV and V. Exts. 3, 3/A, 3/B and 3/C are Jarpeshgi deeds, which were executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of Jhapas Mian on 24.7.1928 in respect of plots no. 285 and 881. These documents were relied by the plaintiffs to show that defendant no.1, Munshi Mian transferred 2 Kathas 10 Dhurs out of total area of 7 Kathas 5 Dhurs and in the southern boundary the name of Shaikh Wali has been mentioned.

The extent of land transferred is 2 1/2 Kathas, which is not one third of 7 Kathas 5 Dhurs. The trial court, however, found that no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to show that the recital of boundary was described at the dictation of Sheikh Munshi, who was uncon-trovertedly an illiterate man. It is well settled that title cannot pass by mere admission, estoppel or mere acquiescence and it has to be created only when it conforms to the requirement of statutes. Reference, if any, may be made to the decisions reported in 1966 S.C. 606 and 1993 (1) PLJR 172. Similarly, the trial court has found on evidence that Ext. 2/B read with Khatian of revisional survey appears to be fictitious and shady transaction because neither any payment of rent through Jumanjati Mian, nor mutation of his name was ever made in respect of the land and, as such, Ext. 2/B does not establish the title of the plaintiffs with regard to Fikas property. So far Ext. 3/B is concerned, the trial court has found that there is no recital of the boundary in the said deed, which was written by the scribe at the direction of Sheikh Munshi. It has also discarded Ext. 3/A on the ground that title cannot pass by mere admission.

It has been found that the plaintiffs have not examined any witness to show that the scribe wrote out the recital as stated by Sheikh Munshi and it was read over and explained to him before affixing his thumb mark. Moreover, these documents were not proved. Another important finding of the trial court is that the plaintiffs-appellants have failed to explain as to why the names of their ancestors were not mutated and why the name of defendant no. 1 was mutated by the Revenue Authority about all the lands of Khata no. 6. The trial court further found that the plaintiffs case that by family arrangement on partition they were in cultivating possession of Fikas one third area of land has been found false as per report of the Pleader Commissioner as well as the map attached to it. Moreover, according to the court below, Ext. 6 series, the certified copies of revisional survey and C.S. Khatian show that the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs were not recorded alongwith Most. Fika and