Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30-4-1988 passed by the then Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 63 of 1984 by which the plaintiff-respondents suit has been decreed for declaration of title in respect of the suit land and also for confirmation of possession. Against this judgment and decree, previously, appeal was preferred choosing wrong forum before the District Judge, Dhanbad, being Title Appeal No. 36 of 1988 but as the jurisdiction was not there with the District Judge, the memorandum of appeal was returned and then the present appeal has been filed. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and alternatively for a decree of recovery of possession, if during the pendency of the suit it was found that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit premises. The tracing of title of the plaintiff was made in the following manner: The suit property along with others measuring 2 Bighas 12 Chhataks 7 Dhurs and 8 Sq. ft. by the then Manbhoom District Board in favour of one Mithu Mistry for an yearly rent of Rs. 20.00 per Bigha. The said settlement was made vide Ext. 1/A, a registered deed of settlement dated 23-1-1934 out of which Mithu Mistry settled Schedule A land measuring 12 Kathas appertaining to T.B. Plot No. 3, Survey Plot No. 266 Khata No. 165 to his grand mother Jaibun Nisha vide registered deed Ext. 4. According to the plaintiff, Jaibun Nisha constructed several constructions. Those were registered as Holding No. 432 to 436 under Ward No. 2 of Dhanbad Municipality. Then Jaibun Nisha gifted away Schedule A property to her second son Himayat Khan on 12-9-1955 fide Ext. 5. Himayat Khan on receipt of the gifted property started possessing the same. According to the further case of the plaintiff, Himayat Khan died leaving behind two sons, namely, Fahim Eqbal Khan and Omar Daraj Khan. The two brothers after the death of their father got their name mutated in place of their father and also in place of Jaibun Nisha and paid rent to the Municipality. Tax receipts had also been exhibited in the case. The two brothers after the death of their father got their name mutated in place of their father and also in place of Jaibun Nisha and paid rent to the Municipality. Tax receipts had also been exhibited in the case. Then both the brothers, namely, Fahim Eqbal Khan and Omar Daraj Khan sold 13 Kathas 7 Chhataks of lands and construction thereof to Gurubachan Singh, Sardar Dilip Singh and Niranjan Singh who also came over the possession of their purchased property and also made several new constructions thereof, The balance of the lands and the houses thereof which was mentioned in Schedule B were sold by those two brothers in favour of the plaintiff by a registered deed of sale-dated 8-11-1983 which has been marked as Ext. 1 in the suit. The plaintiff after purchase mutated his name and started possessing the same on payment of tax to the Municipalities but the defendant started filing case after case against the plaintiff and were trying to dispossess him also. Because of such criminal cases including proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were filed, the plaintiff found that his title is being clouted and, as such, he filed this suit for declaration of his right, title and inter est over Schedule-B properties together with prayer of confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession if found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. 3. The defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. He took various usual pleas such as non-maintainability of the suit, that there was no cause of action, etc. The defence case is that the property belonged to Jharia Raj Estate and it was never included in Manbhoom District Board and one Jagdish Sao got settlement of the property i. e. the whole of the Schedule-A land by a Hukumnama and he remained in possession of the property when he sold the same on 5-51975 to the wife of the defendant, namely, Malti Devi z/de Ext. B. 4. Both the parties adduced evidence in favour of their respective cases. The plaintiffs side examined either witnesses including the plaintiff himself as P.W. 8. The defendant also adduced evidence of six witnesses including the defendant as D.W. 4, Both the parties have also exhibited several documents. B. 4. Both the parties adduced evidence in favour of their respective cases. The plaintiffs side examined either witnesses including the plaintiff himself as P.W. 8. The defendant also adduced evidence of six witnesses including the defendant as D.W. 4, Both the parties have also exhibited several documents. From the plaintiffs side, all the documents, namely, the settlement deed of Mithu Mistry, settlement deed in favour of Jaibun Nisha by Mithu Mistry, Gift-deed of Jaibun Nishain favour of her second son Himayat Khan and the purchase-deed of the plaintiff from Fahim Eqbal Khan and Omar Daraj Khan had been exhibited including the Parcha of the suit land and several tax payment receipts in favour of Dhanbad Municipality. The defendant have not produced any Hukumnama in favour of Jagdish Sao, the vendor of the defendants wife. Only purchase-deed of Malti Devi from Jagdish Sao has been exhibited as Ext. B in the case and tax payment receipt has also been exhibited including some orders passed in different criminal cases. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Court below: (1) Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the present suit? (2) Is the suit barred by limitation ? (3) Is the suit barred under the provisions of estoppel, waiver, and a acquiescence ? (4) Is the suit barred for non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties ? (5) Is the suit barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act ? (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as claimed for ? (7) To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ? 6. Issues No. 2 to 5 had not been pressed before the learned Court below nor there is any press of these issues before this appellate Court also. The vital issue, namely, issue No. 6 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and on the basis of such decision of issue No. 6 issues No. 1 and 7 have also been decided granting relief to the plaintiff-respondent as per his prayer. 7. The crux of dispute is as to who was the original owner of the suit property i.e. either Jharia Raj or Manbhoom District Board. 7. The crux of dispute is as to who was the original owner of the suit property i.e. either Jharia Raj or Manbhoom District Board. The claim of the plaintiff is that the lands as contained in Schedule A was included with Manbhoom District Board long before 1930 and then settlement was made in favour of Mithu Mistry. On the other hand, the defence claim is that the property i.e. Schedule-A land was included within the Estate of Jharia Raj and then the same was settled with Jagdish Sao by a Hukumnama, Except parcha was filed from the side of the plaintiff to the effect that the properties belonged to Manbhoom District Board, nothing more revenue records have been filed. On the other hand, the defence has also not filed any revenue records to show that the property was included in the Jharia Raj Estate. From Ext. I/A., the settlement deed in favour of Mithu Mistry dated 23-1-1934 reveals (the same is written in Bengali) that Schedule-A property was included within the District Board of the then Manbhoom District as far back as in the year 1934 and for the purpose of settlement of the plots contained in Schedule-A, the same was auctioned in 1933 and Mithu Mistry was a bidder and he was found to be the highest bidder and then the District Board in its meeting decided to grant settlement in his favour and accordingly the settlement deed dated 23-1-1934 (Ext. 1 /A) was executed and registered. 8. On the other hand, the defendant claimed that Schedule-A land was included within the Estate of Jharia Raj No document has been produced nor the Hukumnama by which the vendor of the defendants wife claimed the property. Even in the written statement or in the oral evidence, no date of Hukumnama has been mentioned. The purchase deed of Malti Devi which has been marked as Ext. B. has also not disclosed as to how Jagdish Sao got the property. It was simply mentioned in the deed that Jagdish Sao was the owner of the land. It was not mentioned wherefrom he got the same. There was not even mention of any Hukumnama in that deed. Thus, the defendant failed to trace out their title over the suit property. 9. It was simply mentioned in the deed that Jagdish Sao was the owner of the land. It was not mentioned wherefrom he got the same. There was not even mention of any Hukumnama in that deed. Thus, the defendant failed to trace out their title over the suit property. 9. Let us for arguments sake it is taken to be granted that the land or the property as contained in Schedule-A was originally belonged to Jharia Raj Estate but after Manbhoom District Board came in force, the land must have been included within the District Board itself. The plaintiff has consistently proved their title tracing it from the initial settlement since 1934 but the defendant has failed to trace its title except a vague statement that the land was included in Jharia Raj Estate and the defendants vendor Jagdish Sao got settlement of the same by means of Hukumnama. The oral evidence is of not avail in the present case as regards the tracing of title is concerned. The plaintiff could prove their mutation in the Dhanbad Municipality and payment of taxes, etc. The defendant tried to make out a case that Omar Daraj Khan and Fahim Eqbal Khan are not the sons of Hemayat Khan and for that reason, they tried to prove Nikahnama but that Nikahnama could not be proved formally, although marked as Exhibit and that Nikahnama has got no much bearing in the present case as has been rightly held by the learned Court below. Fahim Eqbal Khan has already been examined in the case as P.W. 1 and he has proved his paternity and the same could not be dislodged by lengthy cross-examination even. P.W. 2 is a tenant in the neighbourhood and he has supported the plaintiffs case. P.W. 3 is Guru Bachan Singh to whom also P.W. 1 had made transfers in respect of the balance land of Schedule A minus Schedule B. He has also supported the plaintiffs case. P.W. 4 proved municipal tax receipts (Ext. 2 Series). P.W. 5 is also a formal witness who has proved the mutation paper which has been marked Ext. 3. P.W. 6 has proved the settlement deed (Ext. I/A) dated 23-1-1934. He has also proved the settlement deed of Mithu Mistry in favour of Jaibun Nisha vide Ext. 4. P.W. 4 proved municipal tax receipts (Ext. 2 Series). P.W. 5 is also a formal witness who has proved the mutation paper which has been marked Ext. 3. P.W. 6 has proved the settlement deed (Ext. I/A) dated 23-1-1934. He has also proved the settlement deed of Mithu Mistry in favour of Jaibun Nisha vide Ext. 4. P.W. 7 is also a witness to support the plaintiffs version and P.W. 8 is the plaintiff himself. On the other hand, amongst D.Ws., D.W. 1 attempted to prove a copy of Nikahnama, the origin of which could not be proved. Ext. B has been proved by D.W. 2. D.W. 3 has proved Municipal tax receipts (Ext. 3) and D.W. 4 is the defendant himself who proved some papers of the criminal cases in between him and Fahim Eqbal Khan and also with the present plaintiff. 10. Practically the suit rests on the documentary evidence alone and the plaintiff could prove his title over the suit premises as contained in Schedule-B and tracing of the title at every stage could also be proved by documentary evidence. On the other hand, the defendant has failed to prove the original of his title. Ext. B cannot confer title unless the vendor of the defendant, Jagdish Sao, could be proved to have a title over the suit premises. Hence, I find that Issue No. 6 has rightly been decided by the learned Court below in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 11. A last attempt has been made by Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhaya, for and on behalf of the defendant-appellant to the effect that regarding confirmation of possession as decreed by the learned Court below, no discussion has been made as to how the plaintiffs possession was being proved. Mr. P.R. Bhagat, appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent has rightly submitted that title always follows possession and when the plaintiff could prove its title and there was evidence regarding possession supported by the documentary evidence of tax payment receipts, then it has rightly been held by the learned Court below that the plaintiffs possession could be proved and such decree was granted for confirmation of possession. Alternative prayer was made for recovery of possession if it could be found that the plaintiff could be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit but the defendant no where could prove that the plaintiff or his predecessor could ever the dispossessed and hence such alternative prayer has not been granted by the learned Court below. 12. On independent scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses adduced by the parties and also the documentary evidence exhibited in the case, I also come to the conclusion to the same finding that the plaintiff could be able to prove his title consistently since 1930 and that the defendant could not prove his title by any cogent evidence and also on the basis of oral evidence and the principle that the title follows possession, I find that the decree granted by the learned Court below has got no flaw either on farts or in law. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the plaintiff-respondent shall get. costs throughout both in the suit or in the appeal.