JUDGMENT Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The substantial question of law to be answered in this second appeal is as follows :- Whether the Court of appeal erred in law in holding that the plaintiff had not made out the case of title by adverse possession in the plaint and as such was not entitled to any relief in that case." 2. The aforesaid question arose out of the facts that the plaintiff- respondent-appellant had filed a Title Suit No. 16 of 1975 for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over 14 decimals of land out of 53,60 Acres of land within portion of Plot No. 4, Khata No. 3 of Mouza Kumardhubi, Pergana Pandara, police station Chirkunda, in the district of Dhanbad, bounded in North Portion of Plot No. 4, South Village road and thereafter houses east Durga Mandir and local club and West portion of Plot No. 4 on the basis of settlement made in his favour by M/s. Burrakar Coal Co. Limited in the year 1952 at a rental (annual) of Rs. 1/besides cess; Thereafter, the plaintiff paid rent thereof and received rent receipts (Ext. 2) and raised a small construction and ran a petty business. After the vesting of the jamindari under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the then Block Development Officer of Nirsha asked the plaintiff for production of necessary papers with regard to encroachment "by construction of house over the aforesaid area and the plaintiff showed his papers and requested him for acceptance of rent and for issuance of rent receipts, but that matter was still pending. The positive case of the plaintiff was that not only by settlement but also by possession openly, peacefully and to the knowledge of all including the defendants the plaintiff has acquired a perfect and indefeasible title in respect of Schedule A land. Thereafter, it appears that the construction made by the plaintiff over the disputed land was demolished by the defendants and for that a case under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code was filed in the year 1972, in which the defendants were acquitted and according to the plaintiff that acquittal was net justified and was also not on proper appreciation of evidence. 3. The defendants-appellants-respondents case in short, was that the total area of the land was 53.60 Acres. Out of that M/s. Burrakar Coal Co. 3. The defendants-appellants-respondents case in short, was that the total area of the land was 53.60 Acres. Out of that M/s. Burrakar Coal Co. Ltd. had made a sub-lease in favour of defendant No. 1 in the year 1917 in respect of 33.72 Acres of Acres of land and rest area of the land of the aforesaid Khata No. 4 and Plot No. 3 measuring 19.88 Acres was in peaceful and exclusive possession of Kumardhubi Fireclay and Silica Wcrks Ltd. Thus, the entire area of the said Plot No. 4 is being possessed partly by this defendant and partly by M/s. Kumardhubi Fireclay and Silica Works Ltd. All other allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint were denied and with regard to claim of the plaintiff that he had acquired right, title and interest over the land by adverse possession was challenged by the defendants as they said that the plaintiff was not entitled to raise the question of improper appreciation of evidence by the criminal Court when the defendants were acquitted for the charges under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently the averments in this regard that the plaintiff had acquired right, title and possession over the disputed land by adverse possession was denied and it was strongly pleaded that the plaintiff never possessed any part of the land or the defendants had demolished the construction raised by the plaintiff thereon. The prayer was to dismiss the suit. 4. The learned trial Court on appreciation of documentary evidence as also oral evidence came to find that the plaintiff had a title over the land. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff had got a prima facie case to make his title over the suit land. It also held that the plaintiff was in possession over the suit land since 1952. It also came to find that the plaintiff has acquired his right by adverse possession also. Consequently he granted relief to the plaintiff. 5. It also held that the plaintiff was in possession over the suit land since 1952. It also came to find that the plaintiff has acquired his right by adverse possession also. Consequently he granted relief to the plaintiff. 5. The First appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence found that the plaintiff in the plaint had pleaded that he has been coming possession openly, peacefully and to the knowledge of all including the defendants and so he had acquired a perfect and indefeasible title in respect of Schedule A land, but the learned appellate Court rejected this plea of right of the plaintiff over the disputed land by adverse possession on the following grounds (i) the plaintiff has not asserted his hostile title against the title of the respondents (ii) no period has been mentioned by the plaintiff and in absence of that no title by adverse possession can be proved because in order to acquire right over the land in dispute it was incumbent upon the plaintiff that he has asserted his hostile title over the disputed land against the a land lord for a period of 12 years openly peacefully and to the knowledge of all including the defendants and without any interruption. Consequently, the learned appellate Court held that the plaintiff had no case of title of adverse possession. The learned appellate Court also examined the right, title and interest of the plaintiff by virtue of settlement in favour of the plaintiff and on appreciation of evidence adduced by both the sides, came to find that the statements made by the plaintiff in the criminal Court falsified the alleged story of settlement taken by him from M/s. Barakar Coal Company Limited and consequently he reversed the judgment of the trial Court. 6. Whether the plaintiff had got right, title and interest by virtue of settlement is not a question to be re-examined by this Court because no substantial question of law has been framed in this case at the time of admission of this appeal and it has also not been raised during the course of hearing of this appeal. Consequently, this Court is to examine whether the plaintiff had got right, title and interest over the disputed land by virtue of adverse possession ? 7. Consequently, this Court is to examine whether the plaintiff had got right, title and interest over the disputed land by virtue of adverse possession ? 7. Undisputeldy it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove that he had been in possession over the land of Schedule A openly, peacefully and to the knowledge of all including the defendants and his possession was adverse beginning from a particular date/time and ending on a particular date to show the completion of the statutory period of 12 years against the rightful land owner and, therefore, the question now is whether the plaintiff has been able to prove all the ingredients of title by adverse possession? 8. According to the plaintiff he had got the settlement of the land from the ex-landlord in the year 1952. Thus his possession over the suit land against the ex-landlord begins from 1952 on the basis of settlement and it continued even if presumed that the rent receipt issued in his favour by gomasta of the ex- landlord (Ext. 3) are taken to be true then there was no case of adverse possession against the ex-landlord for the simple reason that as per his own showing this possession was permitted one and not adverse to the ex-landlord. Thus, in the year 1952 the possession of the plaintiff is not within the meaning of adverse possession against the ex-landlord. So, even till the vesting of jawindari in the State of Bihar this possession cannot be taken to be the adverse possession against the ex- landlord. Then the question is whether this possession can be taken adversely against the State of Bihar. This can be a case because there is no return brought on the record by the plaintiff to show that when the returns were filed the name of the plaintiff was included therein. Then it can be said that any construction from that time (Le. This can be a case because there is no return brought on the record by the plaintiff to show that when the returns were filed the name of the plaintiff was included therein. Then it can be said that any construction from that time (Le. vesting or filing returns) over the land in question definitely was unauthorized and illegal and consequently if this possession continued against the State of Bihar for a statutory period after fulfilling all the criteria then the title by adverse possession accrued in favour of the plaintiff against the State of Bihar, but it is found from ample evidence on record which shows that the plaintiff in the year 1963 was served with a notice by State of Bihar for removal of the construction made over the land in question. Meaning thereby that the State of Bihar also did resist the possession of the plaintiff and treated it to be encroachment and before the statutory period the case was filed and even no mutation was made in the name of the plaintiff despite his request. Thus, it is clear that the title was not even acquired by adverse possession against the State of Bihar. More so this matter was not substantially pleaded by the plaintiff, as the State of Bihar is not a party in this second appeal. Then a question arises whether the plaintiff has any adverse possession against the contesting defendants, The defendants case is that they had own settlement by the Barakar Coal Company limited right form the year 1917 and in the said settlement khatian the entire land of Khata No. 3, Plot No. 4 was shown to be as karkhana ghar. In the year 1963 when the complainant made a prayer for mutation order, he was invited by the B.D.O. according to his own saying for filing necessary papers, the plaintiff was not making claim against the present defendants rather at this stage also he was making claim on the basis of settlement by the ex-landlord and before the completion of 12 years it is alleged that a case under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the defendants that they had demolished the structure raised by the plaintiff and that case ended into acquittal. Thus in face of acquittal the plaintiffs own case became admitted that the certain construction allegedly raised by the plaintiff was demolished by the defendants. Thus in face of acquittal the plaintiffs own case became admitted that the certain construction allegedly raised by the plaintiff was demolished by the defendants. Meaning thereby that the plaintiff admits that the possession of the plaintiff was resisted by the contesting defendants in the year 1972 and, therefore, they removed the unauthorized structure over the land in question. It is not specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that against whom he was claiming adverse possession whether against the State of Bihar or against the defendants rather first of all he takes this plea against the State of Bihar and then against the defendants. So in view of above discussion by the year 1972 that period of 12 years is not completed ripening alleged peaceful possession of the defendants in title, thus, the most important ingredient for acquiring title by adverse possession that it must be for last 12 years and that too peaceful and uninterrupted has been proved by the plaintiff. Consequently, I find that the plaintiff did not acquire a title by adverse possession against the contesting defendants appellants-respondents. Accordingly, I find and hold that the appellate Court has not erred in law in holding that the plaintiff had not made out the case of title by adverse possession in the plaint and as such was not entitled to any relief. Consequently the substantial question raised in this case is answered against the appellants-plaintiff. 9. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed with costs. Advocates fee of Rs. 250/-.