JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. This is the defendants second appeal against the judgment of affirmance passed by learned District Judge, Dumka in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 4 of 1994 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree of eviction passed in Eviction Suit No. 20 of 1980. 2. The plaintiff had filed the said suit seeking decree for eviction/ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises and recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiffs case is that Plot No. 947 measuring an area of 1 bigha 9 kathas and 13 dhur is Basouri land and the plaintiff is the landlord of the same. The suit premises was let out to the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- on 06.02.1962. The defendants have been carrying business of motor repair etc. in the suit premises. The defendants defaulted in payment of rent for the period from February 1968 to August, 1968. Notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was served in the month of September 1969 terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises and to pay arrears of rent. When the defendants failed to comply with the same, Title (Eviction) Suit No. 43 of 1971 was filed by the plaintiff. In the said suit the defendants appeared and compromised the suit. The defendants paid the arrears of rent and also promised to pay the rent regularly. The defendants, again, defaulted in payment of rent for March 1979 to November 1979. Again a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was served upon the defendants terminating the tenancy and calling upon the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. The defendants did not comply with the same. Hence, the present suit was filed praying decree for eviction of the defendants and for arrears of rent. 3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement stating, interalia, that the Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit because the suit premises is outside the jurisdiction of Dumka municipal area where the settlement operation is going on and according to the provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the suit should have been filed in the Settlement Court. It has been also stated that the suit land is not Basouri land and the same is not the exclusive property of the plaintiff. The defendants also denied any default in payment of rent. The defendants averred that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties adduced evidences, oral and documentary. Learned Trial Court, on thorough discussion and consideration of the evidences brought on record, has held that the suit land is a Basouri land and that the same was excluded by the official gazette notification being S.O. No. 1387 dated 14.10.1977 and is outside the purview of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872. Learned Court below has also held that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit and that the defendants are the defaulter in payment of rent and a sum of Rs. 600/- became due on account of arrears of rent. Learned Court below further held that the plaintiff is entitled to decree prayed for and decreed the suit. The defendants then preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court in the Court of the District Judge, Dumka which was registered as Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 4 of 1994. The said title appeal was earlier heard by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, who by his order dated 23.01.2004 had framed two additional issues and had remanded the case to learned Trial Court for recording the findings afresh. Against the said judgment, the plaintiff-appellant had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 35 of 2004 in this Court and by a judgment dated 22.06.2004 the order of remand was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Court with a direction to decide the Title Appeal No. 4 of 1994 on merit in accordance with law by applying mind afresh after giving opportunities to the parties. Learned District Judge, Dumka thereafter heard and finally decided the said appeal by the impugned judgment and decree. Learned Lower Appellate Court, in view of the grounds taken by the defendants/appellants, has thoroughly dealt with and considered the relevant facts, evidences and materials on record. Learned Appellate Court, after thorough discussion and consideration, has come to the finding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation is not attracted on the Basouri land. Learned Lower Appellate Court, in view of the grounds taken by the defendants/appellants, has thoroughly dealt with and considered the relevant facts, evidences and materials on record. Learned Appellate Court, after thorough discussion and consideration, has come to the finding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation is not attracted on the Basouri land. Learned Appellate Court has held that the Trial Court has rightly placed reliance on Exhibit D, the hindi notification and also Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 and has rightly come to the conclusion that Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation is not attracted on Basouri land. It has been further held that learned Trial Court has rightly held that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Lower Appellate Court has, thus, concurred with the findings of learned Trial Court on the said issues and dismissed the appeal. 5. Mr. J.P. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously argued that the Courts below have committed serious error holding that the suit is not covered by the provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation though there is no such exclusion of Basouri land in the earlier version of the notification. Learned Counsel submitted that in view of the English version of the notification, this case comes within the purview of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872 (3 of 1872) and in that view the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are vitiated for want of jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the reasons, assigned for holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred, are not correct and sound. Learned Courts below failed to take into consideration the English version of the notification and has improperly dealt with the case and recorded erroneous findings. Learned Counsel submitted that even the plaintiff himself has said that the suit land was subjected to the process of settlement. But the Court below has not properly considered the said vital piece of evidence in arriving at the findings. 6. Mr. Learned Counsel submitted that even the plaintiff himself has said that the suit land was subjected to the process of settlement. But the Court below has not properly considered the said vital piece of evidence in arriving at the findings. 6. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Courts below, on the basis of the evidences on record, have concurrently found that the instant case does not come within the purview of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation and have rightly held that the suit was well within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Learned Counsel urged that the defendants also submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by taking part in the trial of the suit, when the suit is decided against them, they cannot be permitted to raise the said objection. Learned Counsel submitted that the defendants could have agitated the jurisdiction of the Court and got the issue settled at the threshold before taking part in the trial of the suit. Learned Counsel submitted that there are evidences on record to show that the Basouri land is excluded from the operation of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation and the two Courts of facts after discussing and considering the facts, materials and evidences on record, have concurrently recorded their findings on the said issue and this Court, sitting in second appeal, cannot interfere with the said finding of facts. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is only one official gazette in Hindi and the defendants-appellants have been placing English translation which is run the official gazette notification. The Courts below, particularly, the Appellate Court, has duly discussed and having considered the said official gazette notification and other materials on record, rightly come to the finding that the suit land is not covered by Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I find that learned Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court have thoroughly discussed the facts, evidences and materials on record and on due consideration have come to the finding that the suit land is Basouri land. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I find that learned Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court have thoroughly discussed the facts, evidences and materials on record and on due consideration have come to the finding that the suit land is Basouri land. I further find that though the defendants had taken objection of jurisdiction in their written statement, yet they did not seriously contest the said issue at the threshold and took part in the trial of the suit. The suit was decreed against the defendants on contest. The said ground was also taken in appeal and learned Appellate Court duly considered the same and has come to the finding that the suit land is not covered by the provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation and the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. I find no error in the said finding of learned Courts below giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court in this second appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.