Concurrent findings on possession upheld where no perversity or absence of evidence was shown, defeating appellate interference.

Concurrent findings on possession of land in the relevant Fasli year were treated as findings of fact, and appellate interference was permitted only where the finding was perverse or unsupported by evidence. The record showed cogent reasons for rejecting the claim of possession, and no material basis was established to treat the finding as based on no evidence. The factual finding was therefore upheld, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent finding that the appellant was not in possession of the land in the relevant Fasli year could be interfered with in appeal on the ground that it was perverse or based on no evidence.

Analysis: The finding on possession was one of fact. Interference in appeal was warranted only if the finding was shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The record disclosed cogent reasons given by the authorities below to reject the claim of possession in the relevant year, and no basis was shown for treating the finding as perverse or as one recorded without evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of fact was not open to interference, and the appeal failed.

---