Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The orders passed on 6-2-1990 and 21-11-1982 as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 have been challenged in this writ petition. The above-mentioned orders were passed under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 by the authorities having jurisdiction under the Act. 2. The facts of the case run as follows: Jote No. 3 with an area of 14 bighas 9 khatas and 10 dhoors in Mauza Bandarkund was recorded in the name of Kalyan Besra who died some time in the year 1942 at Asansol. Kalyan Besra used to visit the village and went to Bengal for earning livelihood and the lands in question were given under jimma of one Baso Tudu who happened to be predecessor of Respondent No. 4. During the life time of Kalyan Besra while he was at Asansol one Baso Tudu was recorded as Jimmadar in the Jamabandi. It is also an admitted fact that Kalyan Besra died issueless and according to the petitioner, he had a sister in the name of Dhani Besra and according to the petitioner Kalyan Besra was sufficiently Hinduised and on his death the property devolved on his sister Dhani. On the death of Dhani Besra the property devolved on her two sons, namely Jetha Murmu and Harina Munim. The petitioner happens to be one to the sons of Harina Murmu. According to the petitioner, he came in possession over the land in question but his possession was illegally taken away by the respondent No. 4. As such, as per provisions of the Act he filed an eviction suit before the Deputy Collector for declaration of his title. But, it appears that before hand there was already a litigation between Daso Tudu i. e. predecessor of Respondent No. 4 and Jetha Murmu predecessor of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and a Title Suit was filed by Jetha Murmu for eviction of Daso Tudu in the year 1947 being Title Suit No. 36 of 1947 and in that suit declaration was made in favour of Jetha Murmu and according to the petitioner, on the basis of that decree possession was taken by Jetha Murmu and the petitioners predecessor. A proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up when there was claim and counter-claim of possession over the land in question. The proceeding was registered as Cr, Misc. No. 515 of 1969. A proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up when there was claim and counter-claim of possession over the land in question. The proceeding was registered as Cr, Misc. No. 515 of 1969. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, had declared the possession of the lands in favour of Respondent No. 4. The order is contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order that his title has been clouded, filed Title Suit No. 13 of 1969 stating all the farts regarding the earlier decree being passed in favour of his uncle Jetha Murmu. But in the said suit Respondent No. 4 appeared and submitted papers to the effect that the earlier decree in favour of Jetha Murmu in Title Suit No. 36 of 1947 had been set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1949 on 22-9-1949. A revision being preferred by Jetha Murmu, the name was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur, on 19-4-1950. Thus, there was suppressing of the fact from the side of the petitioner to the effect that after getting the decree in Title Suit No. 36 of 1947 the petitioner and his other co-sharers have come in possession over the disputed land. All the facts were considered and on perusal of the documents and records the Settlement Officer came to the finding that the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata as already it was decided in the earlier suit that the predecessor of Respondent No. 4 had acquired perfect title by right of adverse possession. On appeal being preferred before the Commissioner, the same has also been dismissed vide Annexure-2 to the effect that the petitioners suit is barred by principles of res judicata. 3. The main point urged before this Court for and on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that both the Court below had committed error of law in applying the principles of res judicata against the petitioners. 3. The main point urged before this Court for and on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that both the Court below had committed error of law in applying the principles of res judicata against the petitioners. It is the submission for and on behalf of the petitioner that he was never a party to the earlier suit and the issue regarding adverse possession was never being decided on proper appreciation of facts between the parties who fought in the earlier suit and as such, when the issue was not being decided in proper adjudication and when the said decision was not binding on the petitioner, the present suit of the petitioner cannot be held to be barred by principles of res judicata. In this connection, Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in referred to which runs as follows: No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially is issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim (emphasised supplied by me) litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. 4. In the earlier suit, the uncle of the present petitioner was the plaintiff and he claimed the suit land to be devolved on him from the originally recorded tenant Kalyan Besra. The petitioner in the the present suit is claiming title over the land through the same predecessor Kalyan Besra. The petitioner and his uncle stood on the same footing while claiming right over the land in question as to how the present petitioner or his father Harina did not join Jetha Murmu in the earlier suit had not been explained in any way rather if there was really devolution of title from the sister of original raiyat Kalyan Besra then both brothers had title over the land and not Jetha Murmu alone. In the present suit also, although several other claimants are there through Harina Murmu the petitioner is coming alone. It was purposely done as it appears that inclusion of Jetha Murmu should directly hit the provisions of res judicata. In the present suit also, although several other claimants are there through Harina Murmu the petitioner is coming alone. It was purposely done as it appears that inclusion of Jetha Murmu should directly hit the provisions of res judicata. But, as the claim is through the common ancestor then the principles of res judicata will also be applicable in the present suit even though the petitioner was not directly a party in the earlier suit. Moreover, as regards the deciding of the issue with regard to the adverse possession it has been strenuously argued by Mr. Sanyal for and on behalf of the petitioner that the same was not decided on proper adjudication and as such, such decision cannot be binding on the principles of res judicata. It appears that the said judgment was passed long back in appeal in the year 1949 and the same had reached finality long back. The question regarding it cannot be raised now as to the effect there was no sufficient adjudication on the issue. It may be mentioned here that the appellate judgment was practically and totally suppressed and concealed by the petitioner while filing the present title suit before the settlement officer. Only by way of written statement the same was not brought on record by Respondent No. 4. The petitioners claim should also be thrown away on the ground that he did not come with clean hand before the settlement officer because there was suppression of fact on the vital points. Moreover, it is not the case as to how the issue was decided in the earlier suit and in the appeal. But, it appears from the judgments impugned that factual aspects have already been considered as to how the adverse possession had been accrued to the predecessor of Respondent No. 4. From the report of the Sardar, it could be found that in the year 1937 itself the Respondent No. 4s predecessor had acquired the title by way of possession to the knowledge of the real owner. His name was even recorded in the settlement khatiyan, although as jimmadar and that was never questioned by the real owner Kalyan Besra although he lived up to the year 1942. Thus, during the life time of the original raiyat the predecessor of Respondent. No. 4 have perfected his title by right of adverse possession. His name was even recorded in the settlement khatiyan, although as jimmadar and that was never questioned by the real owner Kalyan Besra although he lived up to the year 1942. Thus, during the life time of the original raiyat the predecessor of Respondent. No. 4 have perfected his title by right of adverse possession. Now after long 30/40 years a person claiming to be the heirs of the original raiyat is trying to change that factum of adverse possession which cannot be permissible for any stretch of imagination or legal provision. 5. Another point was raised by Mr. Sanyal to the effect that the order of the appellate Court was passed in the year 1949 when the Act had come in force and as such adverse possession could not have been decided under the provision of Sec. 42 of the Act itself. But, I have already mentioned that the possession of the predecessor of Respondent No. 4 was found in the Sardars report to be continued for more than 12 years in the year 1937 itself and at that time, the real owner was living but no objection was raised from his side which profoundly satisfies the credence of adverse possession when the same was to the knowledge to the real owner. Thus, this point has got no force. 6. In the result, I find that the orders passed by the Courts below cannot be interfered under the writ jurisdiction of this Court, and hence the writ petition is dismissed having no force.