A finding of fact which is final must be clear, specific and unambiguous. If the appellate court records definite findings on the basis of oral evidence and surrounding circumstances, it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate that evidence. However, if the finding is not clear cut and definite, the aggrieved party can reagitate in the High Court a finding of fact given by the first appellate court.

JUDGMENT:- This second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the decree of Shri S. Haque, the Assistant District Judge, Cachar, Silchar, Shri Haque accepted the appeal of the defendant Harija Bibi against the decree of the trial court on reversing the finding of the latter that the plaintiffs-respondents had proved their prescriptive title to the land in dispute, and in consequence dismissed their suit with costs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs was that Ahmed Ali was the original owner of the land in dispute, that he (Ahmed Ali) sold a part of the land in dispute to plaintiffs Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Jowed Ali, the father of plaintiff No.4 and the husband of plaintiff No.5 by a registered sale deed Ex.5, dated 16-2-1935, and that thereafter he sold the balance of the land in dispute to the same vendees per registered sale deed Ex.7, dated 17-10-1938. Ever since the date of purchase, the Plaintiffs alleged, they had been in possession of the land without any disturbance. The right and interest of Jowed Ali in the land was inherited by plaintiffs Nos.4 and 5 on his death. During the survey carried out in the latest settlement, the entire land in dispute was entered in the names of the plaintiffs on the basis of their possession. However, the defendant Harija Bibi raised a dispute respecting that entry and the Settlement Officer, Karimganj, declared Harija Bibi as the owner and in possession of the land. Since the order made by the Settlement Officer and the consequent entries in the revenue records in the name of Harija Bibi had clouded the rights of the plaintiffs in the land in dispute, they filed the suit, giving rise to this appeal, claiming a declaration of their ownership of and khas possession over that land.

3. Harija Bibi contested the suit on the footing that she had purchased the land from her husband Ahmed Ali per registered sale deed Ex.A, dated 26-6-1932. She denied, on the strength of that sale deed, that her husband had any right to make a transfer of the same land to the plaintiffs in the years 1935 and 1938. She also contested the claim of the plaintiffs that they had been in possession of the land since the dates of their alleged purchases.

4. The trial court found that the sale deed Ex.A in favour of the defendant is a genuine document, that though the sale deeds secured by the plaintiffs had also been executed by Ahmed Ali and duly registered they could not prevail against the one executed by Ahmed Ali in favour of his wife, the latter being of earlier date, and that as such the plaintiffs could not claim right to the land on the basis of the sale deeds propounded by them. However, that court reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land in dispute for the last 28 years and that since their possession was adverse to the title held by the defendant in that land, the plaintiffs had become owners of the land by adverse possession which had continued for more than 12 years before the institution of the suit. On the basis of this latter finding, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

5. The learned Assistant District Judge held, while allowing the appeal against the decree of the trial court, that the plea of adverse possession had not been taken by the plaintiffs in the plaint and so they could not have availed of the same, that since the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land on their own showing on the basis of the title acquired by them from Ahmed Ali they could not lay claim to it on the strength of prescriptive possession for the statutory period, and that the plaintiffs had also not been able to establish their possession for that period.

6. Shri N.M. Dam urged for the plaintiffs-appellants that the claim of adverse possession raises a question of law which he is entitled to urge in second appeal, that at any rate the Assistant District Judge did not record an unambiguous finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their prescriptive title an