Bondar Singh and another v. Nihal Singh and others, (2003) 4 SCC 161 . Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.P. Roy Barman, the learned counsel for the respondents, reminds this court about the limited jurisdiction of this Court sitting in a second appeal which is confined only to examination of the question as to whether the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and no others. He submits that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below cannot be reopened by this Court in the absence of perversity. That apart, contends the learned counsel, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. It is also his contention that the evidence brought on record by the appellants cannot even remotely prove adverse possession, much less, his possession over the suit land. He, therefore, maintains that the courts below have correctly dismissed the suit, and this appeal must also meet the same fate. To fortify his submissions, the learned counsel places reliance on Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another, (2016) 10 SCC 315, Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016) 3 SCC 78 and the decision of this Court in Arup Acharjee v. State of Tripura and others, (2015) 2 TLR 736 .
