JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Since these two appeals arose out of common Judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have challenged the Judgment and decree dated 8.1.2004 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Koderma in Title Appeal Nos. 24 and 26 of 2000 whereby he has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants and affirmed the Judgment and decree dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Munsif, Koderma in Title Suit No. 9/96 whereby the so called counterclaim filed by the interveners-respondents has been allowed and decreed. These two appeals were admitted on 6.5.2004 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the trial Court acted legally and with jurisdiction in purporting to decide the claim of defendants 3 to 17 as against defendants 1 and 2 and/or against additional defendants 18 to 20 in the suit filed by the plaintiff? (ii) Having found that the suit was liable to be dismissed, whether the Courts below had the jurisdiction to proceed to decide any inter se dispute between the defendants considering the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed therein by the plaintiff? (iii) Whether the Courts below have not misunderstood the scope of a counter-claim in terms of Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether a counterclaim at the instance of one defendant against a co-defendant is maintainable in law in a suit of this nature? (iv) Whether on the pleadings and the evidence the Courts below were Justified in passing the decree that is challenged in this Second Appeal?" 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, namely, Bishwanath Mahto filed Title Suit No. 9/96 in the Court of Munsif, Koderma for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the land comprised within khata No. 2 of village Langrapara, Domchanch, Thana No. 62, P.S. Koderma, District-Hazaribagh, (now Koderma). The suit was originally filed against the State of Bihar through the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma. Plaintiffs case is that he acquired the land by virtue of a Hukumnama dated 1.4.1945 granted by the then Zamindar, namely, F.F. Christian, of village Domchanch, P.S. Koderma and came in continuous possession of the same. The suit was originally filed against the State of Bihar through the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma. Plaintiffs case is that he acquired the land by virtue of a Hukumnama dated 1.4.1945 granted by the then Zamindar, namely, F.F. Christian, of village Domchanch, P.S. Koderma and came in continuous possession of the same. After vesting of the zamindari he was recognized as a tenant of the State of Bihar and was granted rent receipts. It is alleged that in the year, 1964-65 the forest department was making demarcation of the forest land and when the plaintiff was found in possession, the forest department leased out the land in favour of the plaintiff but inspite of it the defendants threatened to dispossess him from the land by brining false forest cases. 4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the State of Bihar and the Divisional Forest Officer contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the claim of the plaintiff over the land. The case of the defendant- State was that by a notification the land was declared as protected forest in the year, 1953 and it has always been in possession of the defendants. 5. During the pendency of the suit defendants 3 to 17 (respondents herein) intervened in the suit by filing intervention petition and they were impleaded as defendants. The said defendants filed their written statement and also the so-called counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and interest over the property in question and for the relief of possession. 6. Thereafter defendant Nos. 18 to 20 who are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 32/2004, also filed intervention petition. The learned Munsif allowed them to intervene in the suit and to watch the proceeding along with the State. 7. The trial Court framed as many as 13 issues and finally, in terms of judgment, dismissed the suit but allowed the counterclaim of defendant Nos. 3 to 17 declaring that they have got absolute right, title and interest in the suit property and are entitled to recover possession. 8. The appellants, namely, the State of Bihar and defendant Nos. 18 to 20 filed the aforementioned appeals which were heard together by the First Additional District Judge, Koderma who, in terms of the judgment dated 8.1.2004 dismissed both the appeals and declared that respondent Nos. 8. The appellants, namely, the State of Bihar and defendant Nos. 18 to 20 filed the aforementioned appeals which were heard together by the First Additional District Judge, Koderma who, in terms of the judgment dated 8.1.2004 dismissed both the appeals and declared that respondent Nos. 3 to 17 have got valid right, title and interest over the suit land. The appellate Court further ordered that the appellants are permanently injuncted from further mining operation. 9. Mr. Sashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing in Second Appeal No. 32/2004 assailed the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the Courts below have committed serious illegality in treating the amendment petition as a counter-claim and allowed the said counter- claim. Learned counsel submitted that the Courts below have totally failed to consider the provisions of Order VIII Rule 6A, CPC and committed serious illegality in entertaining the so called counter-claim after filing of the written statement. Learned counsel, in this regard, relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jag Mohan Chawla and Anr. v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2222 . Mr. Dwivedi drawn my attention to the amendment petition and submitted that even if such petition is treated as counter-claim, that shall be restricted as against the plaintiffs only and the Courts below have no jurisdiction to decide the issue raised in a counter-claim in between the inter se defendants. Learned counsel lastly submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have not at all discussed the oral evidence adduced by the parties and have mainly relied upon the record of right prepared in 18th Century. Learned Counsel put reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 374 . 10. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State in title appeal No. 50/2004 firstly submitted that the Courts below have committed serious error of record in holding that no written statement was filed by the State as against the so called counter-claim filed by the inter-vener- defendants. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant-State filed written statement and asserted the title of the State over the land in dispute. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant-State filed written statement and asserted the title of the State over the land in dispute. Learned counsel submitted that no evidence was led by the respondents in support of their possession and also to the effect that these intervener-defendants were recognized by the State as raiyat in respect of the land in question. Learned counsel further adopted the submissions made by Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for other appellants. 11. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents firtly submitted that the question of possession remained unchallenged inasmuch as the appellant-State never took the stand that the land stood vested in the State pursuant to the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel submitted that these two appeals themselves are not maintainable for the reason that title and possession of the defendant-respondents have not been denied and remained uncontroverted. Learned counsel further submitted that the relief granted by the Courts below are perfectly legal and valid and is in consonance with the provisions of Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act. 12. Before appreciating the submissions made by learned counsel, I would like to refer relevant portion of the finding recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court. The trial Court framed as many as the following 13 issues : 1. Is the suit, as framed, maintainable? 2. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Have the defendants 3 to 17 got valid cause of action for the counter- claim? 4. Is the suit barred by the principles of waiver, etoppel, acquiescence? 5. Is the suit barred by limitation? 6. Is the suit hit by Section 80, CPC? 7. Has the plaintiff acquired raiyati right, title and interest on the basis of the settlement? 8. Is the plaintiff in possession of the suit land? 9. Have the defendants 3 to 17 acquired raiyati right as being heirs of the ex-intermediary? 10. Are the defendants 3 to 17 in possession of the suit land? 11. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief as claim? 12. Are the defendants 3 to 17 entitled to a decree for their counter- claim? 13. Is the plaintiff or defendants 3 to 17 entitled to any reliefs? 13. Issue Nos. 7 to 19 have been taken together and while appreciating the case of defendant Nos. 11. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief as claim? 12. Are the defendants 3 to 17 entitled to a decree for their counter- claim? 13. Is the plaintiff or defendants 3 to 17 entitled to any reliefs? 13. Issue Nos. 7 to 19 have been taken together and while appreciating the case of defendant Nos. 3 to 17, the trial Court held as under : "of course there is no tangible proof of act of possession on the day of vesting but I find that this case has not at all been denied by either plaintiff or defendants 1 and 2. At this stage it may also be noted that the defendants 3 to 17 by making counter-claim and paying Court-fee with specific relief brought by them assumed character and status of plaintiff Bishwanath Mahto as well as defendants 1 and 2 to deny their case by filing written statement which has not been done." "Hence I find that the case if defendant Nos. 3 to 17 stands unchallenged and undenied." 14. On this finding the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit on contest and allowed the counter-claim. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under : "That the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed on contest and be decreed in terms of the counter-claim of the defendants 3 to 17 declaring that they are have got absolute right title and interest in the suit property and that they are entitled to recovery of possession over the same. 15. The appellate Court considered Ext. F/1 which is a copy khewat and recorded a finding that acquisition of property by these defendants have not been controverted, challenged or denied by any of the respondents and as such respondent Nos. 4 to 18 have got valid and conclusive right, title and interest in the suit land. The appellate Court further held as under : "In view of the above unrebutted documents Ext. F/1 and G/1 record of right so prepared according to law is conclusive proof of right, Title and interest unless rebutted. The oral evidence produced by these respondents therefore, need not to go through as the above documents speak themselves about the facts. Moreover, oral evidences are excluded where the undisputed and unrebutted documents are available in record. 16. F/1 and G/1 record of right so prepared according to law is conclusive proof of right, Title and interest unless rebutted. The oral evidence produced by these respondents therefore, need not to go through as the above documents speak themselves about the facts. Moreover, oral evidences are excluded where the undisputed and unrebutted documents are available in record. 16. On the basis of these finding, the appellate Court not only affirmed the judgment and decree passed in favour of the defendants but also granted one more relief. The operative portion of the judgment of the appellate Court reads as under : "Both the appeals 24/2000 and 26/2000 be and the same are dismissed on contest and ex parte against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is hereby declared that respondent Nos. 4 to 18 have got valid right, title and interest over the suit land. It is further ordered that the appellants are permanently injuncted from further Mining Operation." 17. The moot question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Courts below were justified in treating amendment petition filed by defendants/respondents Nos. 4 to 18 as counter-claim and passing a decree in their favour. 18. For better appreciation, Order VIII, Rule 6(A) to Rule 6(G) of the Code of Civil Procedure is quoted herein below : "6-A. Counter-claim by defendant--(1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under Rule 6, set up, by way of counterclaim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not : Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. 6-B. Counter-claim to be stated.--Where any defendant seeks to rely upon any ground as supporting a right of counter-claim, he shall, in his written statement, state , specifically that he does so by way of counter-claim. 6-C. Exclusion of counter-claim.--Where a defendant sets up a counterclaim and the plaintiff contends that the claim thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim but in an independent suit, the plaintiff may, at any time before issues are settled in relation to the counter-claim, apply to the Court for an order that such counterclaim may be excluded, and the Court may, on the hearing of such application make such order as it thinks fit. 6-D. Effect of discontinuance of suit.--If in any case in which the defendant sets up a counter-claim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter-claim may nevertheless be proceeded with. 6-E. Default of plaintiff to reply to counter-claim.--If the plaintiff makes default in putting in a reply to the counter-claim made by the defendant, the Court may pronounce judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the Counter-claim made against him, or make such order in relation to the counter- claim as it thinks fit. 6-F. Relief to defendant where counter-claim succeeds.--Where in any suit a set-off or counter-claim is established as a defendant against the plaintiffs claim, and any balance is found due to the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, the court may give judgment to the party entitled to such balance. 6-G. Rules relating to written statement to apply.--The rules relating to a written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim." 19. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 6(A), it is manifest that defendant in a suit may set up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff but such counter-claim shall be made before the defendant delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 6(A), it is manifest that defendant in a suit may set up by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff but such counter-claim shall be made before the defendant delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. If such counter-claim is filed, it shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment on the counter-claim also. Rule 6(A)(4) categorically provides that counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. 20. Order VIII, Rule 6(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure was introduced by Amendment Act of 1976 but the very purpose of introducing this new rule on the recommendation of the Law Commission of India was to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings inasmuch as giving right to the defendant to raise not only plea of set-off but also counter-claim by setting up rights to himself irrespective of the fact whether cause of action for counter-claim had accrued afterwards of the filing of the suit. Counter-claim for all intent and purposes is a suit filed by one figuring as defendant in another suit filed by the plaintiff. It is, therefore, mandatory requirement of law that counter-claim-must fulfill all the requirements of law with respect to a plaint. In the case of Jag Mohan Chawla and Anr. v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2222 the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Order VIII, Rule 6(A) observed : "In Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6-A, the language is so couched with words of wide width as to enable the parties to bring his own independent cause of action in respect of any claim that would be the subject-matter of an independent suit. Thereby, it is no longer confined to money claim or to cause of action of the same nature as original action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff. Thereby, it is no longer confined to money claim or to cause of action of the same nature as original action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff. The words "any right of claim in respect of a cause of action accruing with the defendant" would show that the clause of action from which the counter-claim arises need not necessarily arise from or have any nexus with the cause of action of the plaintiff that occasioned to lay the suit. The only limitation is that the cause of action should arise before the time fixed for filing the written statement expires. The defendant may set up a cause of action which has accrued to him even after the institution of the suit. The counter-claim expressly is treated as cross suit with all the indicia of pleadings as a plaint including the duty to aver his cause of action and also payment of the requisite Court-fee thereon. Instead of relegating the defendant to an independent suit, to avert, multiplicity of the proceeding and needless protection, the legislature intended to try both the suit and the counterclaim in the same suit as suit and cross suit and have them disposed of in the same trial. In other words, a defendant can claim any right by way of a counterclaim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit. 21. In the instant case, from the record of the suit it appears that defendant/respondent Nos. 4 to 18 instead of filing a counter-claim by observing all the rules or pleadings, filed an amendment petition for amendment of written statement and seeking a relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit property on payment of declaratory Court-fee. Thereafter, second amendment petition was filed seeking relief of recovery of possession. Both the Court below without considering the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6(A) and without following the correct procedure of law treated those amendment petitions as a counterclaim and passed a decree in favour of the defendants/respondents. Thereafter, second amendment petition was filed seeking relief of recovery of possession. Both the Court below without considering the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6(A) and without following the correct procedure of law treated those amendment petitions as a counterclaim and passed a decree in favour of the defendants/respondents. Not only that both the Courts below have totally ignored the correct procedure of law and the rules of evidence while deciding the issues framed in the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below therefore, suffers from serious illegality and infirmity. The judgment impugned therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, these two appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court are set- aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for passing fresh judgment in accordance with law on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.