ORDER

1. The State of Kerala is in appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in the second appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title over the Plaint B schedule property and for consequential relief of injunction against the State on the basis that she had perfected her title over the suit property by adverse possession. The trial court, after a full-dressed trial on appreciation of evidence, recorded findings against the plaintiff and concluded that she failed to establish that she had perfected her title by adverse possession over the property in question. In that view, the suit was dismissed. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the first appellate court by a well-considered and elaborate order after reappreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence. The first appellate court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in establishing the plea that she or her husband had been in possession of the property peacefully, uninterruptedly and adversely against the defendants for the last more than 30 years. The second appeal filed by the plaintiff had been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the plea of adverse possession put forward by the appellant is in any way affected by the production and proof of Exts. A-2 to A-4 arises for consideration."

2. From the perusal of the impugned judgment it is clear that the High Court in a way has reappreciated the evidence on record and reversed the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below going beyond the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that the so-called substantial question of law on which the High Court admitted the second appeal, was not at all a substantial question of law; it is one which relates to appreciation of evidence, in particular, as regards documents Exhibits A-2 to A-4. Learned counsel added that the two courts below, on a proper appreciation of evidence, taking note of the fact that there was no mention in the plaint about the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property by giving on lease as per Exhibits A-2 to A-4; the two courts below also did not accept Exhibits A-2 to A-4 by doubting their genuineness, considering the fact that neither was there a mention of these exhibits in the plaint nor were they produced before the court along with the plaint; the suit b was filed in the year 1980 and those documents were filed only in the year 1984. The learned counsel also stated that the proceedings were taken against the son of the plaintiff in the year 1979 to remove the encroachment. Pursuant to those proceedings, possession of the property in question was taken on 15-1-1980 and the suit was filed on 19-1-1980. Under the circumstances, according to him, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained c and the High Court has committed an error in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below.

4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made submissions supporting the impugned judgment of the High Court. He pointed out that the respondents had been using the Plaint B schedule property in approaching the national highway since the beginning.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the reasons recorded by the trial court as well as the first appellate court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court committed an error in reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below by reappreciating the evidence placed on record. In fact, no substantial question of law did arise for consideration before the High Court. The substantial question of law formulated by the High Court at the time of admitting the appeal, in our view, again touches the appreciation evidence in re