In a second appeal, the appellate court should not interfere with the findings of fact made by the lower appellate court unless there is an error of law.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 153 of 1977 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 5th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 100 of 1975. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as follows : - holding No. 12 of Sriramdhang Road was a thika tenancy of one Akhil Chandra Maity. Akhil Chandra Maity died leaving his widow Atulmoyee Maity and two sons Sibgopal and Balaram. The defendant Sushil Kumar Maity is the son of Shibgopal. Plaintiff No. 1 Sandhya Rani is wife of plaintiff No. 2 Balaram Maity. Heirs of Akhil Maity sold the property to one Ganashyam Das for consideration of Rs. 2,500/- on 13-11-1950. On the same day Ghanashyam executed a registered agreement for reconveyance in favour of the heirs of Akhil. They purchased the property from said Ghanshyam on 12-9-1954 and on the same day plaintiff No. 1 purchased the right, title and interest of Shibgopal and Atulmoyee on a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- on the strength of a Registered Deed of the same day. The vendors Atulmoyee and Shibgopal were granted licence to reside in the premises they sold to plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiffs having revoked the licence of the defendant instituted the suit for possession. The defendant's case was that the deed of sale alleged to have been executed in favour of plaintiff No. 1 was without any consideration and it was a sham transaction which was never given effect to. Shibgopal was burdened with debt and under advice of Balaram who was the Karta of the family, he and his mother Atulmoyee executed the same document. He has asserted that he is residing in his own house to which he has a interest as co-sharer.

( 2 ) THE Trial Court found that the document in question was in fact a sham transaction and dismissed the suit. In appeal the Lower Appellate Court reversed the finding. The learned Advocate Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the appellant urged that the Lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in reversing the judgment inasmuch as he has failed to take into account from materials and important evidence into his consideration and thus arrived at an erroneous finding of fact which is not warranted on the face of the evidence on record. He urged that the Lower Appellate Court in his judgment proceeded on the fact that passing of consideration with regard to the deed of sale in favour of plaintiff No. 1 was admitted. His other grievance is that the Court came to an erroneous finding when he stated that there is no evidence on record with regard to the creditor of Shibgopal. The learned Advocate also raised a point of law stating that if the property was sold to Ghanshyam Das and was re-purchased on 12-2-1954 how the title of Shibgopal can pass by a document registered on the same day but executed on 10-2-1954. It appears that Mr. Mukherjee is correct when he asserts that it was never admitted by the defendant that the consideration in respect of sale to plaintiff No. 1 was ever admitted by the defendant possibly this is an over statement made by the learned lower Appellate Court. Consistent case of defendant is that no consideration ever passed. As D. W. 3 he has also stated the same. It cannot therefore be said that non-passing of the consideration was admitted by the defendant but on perusal of the entire evidence it is clear that the Lower Appellate Court could have arrived at a finding that there are material evidence in support of passing a consideration. In fact in the judgment the learned Lower Appellate Court has referred to such evidence. P. W. 1 who scribed this document has clearly stated that the consideration was paid in his presence and in his house. Nothing could be established for which his evidence should be disbelieved.

( 3 ) P. W. 3 Sandhyarani Maity in her deposition she stated that she acquired the property in question by purchase. She did not clearly state that she