JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the defendants' second appeal is as under:-

"Whether the finding relating to ownership of respondent No. 1 over the property is perverse?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status and nomenclature shown in the suit before the trial Court].

2. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 to 3 stating inter-alia that he has purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 30.3.92 (Ex. P/1) from defendant No. 3 and obtained peaceful possession of the suit land and his name was got mutated by order of the Tahsildar dated 14.8.1982 and challenge made to that mutation order by defendant No. 1 in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Surguja was allowed by order dated 2.4.93 vide Ex. P/8 leading to filing of the suit for aforesaid relief. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff claimed that he has been dispossessed by the defendants, after rejecting his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, plaint was allowed to be amended by order dated 9.7.97 and relief of recovery of possession was claimed to be made by the plaintiff.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement before the trial Court stating inter-alia that agreement to sell was executed by defendant No. 3 in their favour on 2.1.91 (Ex. D/1) and possession was delivered to defendants No. 1 and 2 by defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 has also executed two sale deeds dated 6.4.92 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively vide Ex. D/2 and D/3, as such, they are in possession over the suit land and the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed. It is pertinent to note that name of defendant No. 3 has been deleted during course of the trial.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record by its judgment and decree dated 18.10.2000 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which was appealed by the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit and set aside the decree of the trial Court. Questioning the same, the present second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2, in which the substantial question of law has been framed by this Court which has been set out in opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2, would submit that the First Appellate Court was absolutely unjustified in reversing well merited and well reasoned judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit and erred in law holding that the plaintiff has title in his favour, as such, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court holding the plaintiff to be title-holder is perverse and liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff, would submit that the First Appellate Court has clearly recorded a finding that agreement to sell dated 2.1.91 (Ex. D/1) is forged document and further recorded a finding that defendant No. 3 has already sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 30.3.92 (Ex. P/1) and therefore, defendants No. 1 and 2 got no title on execution of sale (Exs. D/2 and D/3) in their favour Such a finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, as such, there is no perversity in holding that the plaintiff is title-holder of the suit land. Therefore, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties herein and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

8. Execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No. 3 vide Ex. P/1 dated 30.3.92, who was erstwhile owner of the suit land, is not in dispute. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have claimed