JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - The successors of the original Plaintiff are in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1995 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Title Suit No. 96 of 1993. 2. The original Plaintiff, Satis Chandra Sarangi filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over Schedule 'B' land of the plaint (suit land), for permanent injunction against Defendant-respondent No. 1 and for declaring the sale deed No. 342 dated 12.2.1993 as illegal and void. Plaintiff's case was that his father Manikar Sarangi was the Guru of Rajmata Late Manoj Manjari Bhanja Deo of Keonjhar and the said Rajmata out of affection and good-will gifted Schedule 'A' land measuring Ac.0.12 dec. on plot No. 179, Khata No. 48 to him and his father Manikar vide gift deed No. 1731 dated 15.12.1951; and accordingly he and his father possessed Schedule 'A' land and constructed a house thereon. Plaintiff pleaded that he also possessed Schedule 'B' land which adjoins the Schedule 'A' land laying a foundation on that land for construction of his house. He claimed that by remaining in possession of this suit land openly for more than 30 years he acquired title over the same by adverse possession, -bot -defendant No. 1 in the 3rd week of March, 1993 suddenly claimed right over Schedule 'B' land on the plea that Defendant No. 2 through his power of attorney holder sold Ac.0.06 dec. out of plot No. 178 of Khata No. 29 including the suit land in favour of Defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed No. 342 dated 12.2.1993 and wanted to raise construction of a club thereon. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 2 never inherited the 'Gadi' of State of Keonjhar and had no saleable right in the suit property. In such situation, in order to clear the position and to protect his right, the Plaintiff filed the above noted suit. 3. Defendant No. 3, daughter of Rajmata Late Manoj Manjari Bhanja Deo did not file any written statement and was set ex parte. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement pleading, inter alia, that the suit Schedule 'B' land was never possessed by the Plaintiff and he never acquired title over the same by adverse possession. 3. Defendant No. 3, daughter of Rajmata Late Manoj Manjari Bhanja Deo did not file any written statement and was set ex parte. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement pleading, inter alia, that the suit Schedule 'B' land was never possessed by the Plaintiff and he never acquired title over the same by adverse possession. They also challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation and the suit land described in the plaint is indefinite. They also pleaded that Defendant No. 2 succeeded to the estate of Late Raja N.N. Bhanjdeo in the year 1981 as per the custom prevalent in the Royal Dynasty and became absolute owner thereof and that the Plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the right and title of Defendant No. 2 over the suit land and other properties of the estate when Rajmata Late Manoj Manjari Bhanja Deo or her daughter never challenged the same. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, nine issues were framed. After considering the evidence led by the parties, learned Civil Judge decided some of the technical issues, such as, maintainability, limitation, unvaluation etc. in favour of the Plaintiff, but held that the Plaintiffs never acquired any title over the suit property by way of adverse possession, the sale deed No. 342 dated 10.2.1993 is not invalid or void. Learned Civil Judge also held that the suit suffers from indefiniteness in the description of the suit property. He, accordingly, dismissed the suit. That judgment and decree having been confirmed in first appeal, the Appellant has filed the present Second Appeal. It is worthwhile to mention here that during tendency of the 1st appeal, appellant-appellant died and the present Appellants were substituted as his legal heirs. 5. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration in this appeal. Whether non-consideration of the documents, Exts.1 and 2 by the appellate court would vitiate the finding? However, at the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the Appellants also raised question about the correctness of the findings of the courts below that customary law of lineal primogeniture was there in the royal family of Keonjhar and that the Defendant No. 2 inherited the estate under that customary law. 6. However, at the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the Appellants also raised question about the correctness of the findings of the courts below that customary law of lineal primogeniture was there in the royal family of Keonjhar and that the Defendant No. 2 inherited the estate under that customary law. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the documents, Exts.1 and 2 show that Rajmata Late Manoj Manjari Bhanja Deo and her husband Balabhadra Narayan Bhanjadeo were the owner of the property, but the first appellate court did not take into consideration these documents and thereby arrived at an erroneous conclusion that Defendant No. 2 was the owner of the suit property. According to him, non-consideration of these documents vitiated the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. Ext. 1 is a rayati Khatian in favour of Balabhadra Narayan Bhanjadeo, son of Raja Gopinath Narayan Bhanjadeo. Ext. 2 is the certified copy of the registered gift deed under which Rajmata Manoj Manjari Debi gifted Ac.0.11 dec. of land (Schedule 'A' land) in favour of Manikar Sarangi as the Plaintiff. Ext. 1 shows that some lands were settled as private property of Balabhadra Narayan Bhanjadeo and Ext. 2 indicates that Rajmata Manoj Manjari Debi had got some property from her husband Balabhadra Narayan Bhanjadeo by way of gift and out of that property, she gave Schedule 'A' land to Manikar Sarangi and his son. There is no dispute about Schedule 'A' land or the gift of that land in favour of the Plaintiff and his father. But these documents do not contain anything specific about Schedule 'B' land. The documents also do not indicate that after the death of the Maharaja, Rajmata Manoj Manjari Debi inherited the estate, rather it shows that Late Maharaja had gifted some property to Rajmata Manoj Manjari Debi. So, non-consideration of these documents did not in any way vitiate the findings of the 1st appellate court because courts below on consideration of all the evidence and legal position came to the conclusion that Defendant No. 2 was the owner of Schedule 'B' property and had legal right to transfer the same in favour of Defendant No. 1. 7. So, non-consideration of these documents did not in any way vitiate the findings of the 1st appellate court because courts below on consideration of all the evidence and legal position came to the conclusion that Defendant No. 2 was the owner of Schedule 'B' property and had legal right to transfer the same in favour of Defendant No. 1. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that the 1st appellate court did not rightly interpret "Pachchis Sawal" and therefore, it's conclusion that law of lineal primogeniture was prevalent in the royal family of Keonjhar is not acceptable. In this regard he cited the cases in Rameshwar Singh Deo and Others etc. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Singh Deo and Others Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo Vs. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo and Others, and stated that after incorporation of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956 the customary law of primogeniture in the royal family was given a good-bye in view of Section 4 of the Act and therefore, there was no scope of Defendant No. 2 inheriting Keonjhar estate. 8. Mr. Palit, learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that a close reading of "Pachchis Sawal" and the rulings of the apex court in Rajkumar Narsingh Pratap Singh Deo Vs. State of Orissa and Another, as well as the judgment of this Court in Sri Prabir Kumar Bhanja Deo v. The State of Orissa OJC No. 213 of 1967 clarify that customary law of primogeniture was still there in the royal family of Keonjhar even after merger of the state in the year 1948 and after incorporation of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956. 9. In 1814 the Superintendent of Tributary Mahals in Orissa addressed 25 questions to the Rulers of the States and these are known as the "Pachchis Sawal". The questions, along with the answers, have been printed in book form by the Government and it has always been considered as a record of great authority in matters of customs of descent in the States referred to therein. The "Pachchis Sawal" have been accepted as authority in the matters of customs of descent in the States also by the judicial pronouncements in the cases of Gopal Prasad Bhakat v. Raghunath Deb ILR 32 Cal. 158 and Raja Brajasunder Deb v. Srimati Swarna Manjari Devi 22 C.W.N. 433. 10. Question No. IX of the "Pachchis Sawal" is relevant. The "Pachchis Sawal" have been accepted as authority in the matters of customs of descent in the States also by the judicial pronouncements in the cases of Gopal Prasad Bhakat v. Raghunath Deb ILR 32 Cal. 158 and Raja Brajasunder Deb v. Srimati Swarna Manjari Devi 22 C.W.N. 433. 10. Question No. IX of the "Pachchis Sawal" is relevant. The questions and answers are noted below: Question X: On the death of Rajah, suppose he leaves no son born of any of his Ranees, but leaves a brother (s) and sons by his Phool Bahees and concubines; and suppose his Ranees have not become "Sutees", who, in such a case, would succeed? Answer: In case of Rajah demise leaving no son by any of his Ranees, he is succeeded by his brother; and if he leave no brother, then the succession is the right of his brother's son. The son of a concubine, or slave girl, has no right to the succession. On the basis of this question and answer, the exclusion of females from succession to the estate of Dompara was upheld by the Patna High Court and the Privy Council also did not express any contrary view so far as the custom based on "Pachchis Sawal" is concerned. In the case of Prabir Kumar Bhanja Deo (supra), a Division Bench of this Court after analyzing all the legal provisions and case laws came to the conclusion that the customary law of primogeniture is still in force in the State of Orissa. Although that was in the context of a maintenance matter, yet after thorough analysis, it was held that even after merger of the estate and coming up of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the inheritance of the estate in the royal family of Keonjhar is guided by the customary law of primogeniture. 11. The specific submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that after Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the single lineal succession by way of primogeniture evaporated and so, after 1956 there was no scope for succession by primogeniture. In support of his submission he strongly relied the case of Rameshwar Singh Deo (supra). That case came up before the Division Bench of Patna High Court. In support of his submission he strongly relied the case of Rameshwar Singh Deo (supra). That case came up before the Division Bench of Patna High Court. Though both the Judges agreed that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act is prospective in effect and does not have exceptional consequence of divesting a person of the estate, which may have devolved upon him by alleged custom of primogeniture, but their Lordships differed on the issue of continuance of the custom of lineal primogeniture after enactment of Hindu Succession Act. While Justice S.J. Hyder maintained the view that the property although partiable in nature may, by custom or by terms of the grant made by a Government, be impartible in the sense that it always devolves on the senior member of a family to the exclusion of other members and Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act cannot erase such customary law in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act, Justice Uday Singh maintained the view that on enactment of Hindu Succession Act, the restraint on partibility became non-existent and a custom of impartibility and lineal primogeniture evaporated. In the case of Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo (supra), the apex Court clarified that Section 5(ii) of Hindu Succession Act protects an estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into or by the terms of any enactment inasmuch as Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to such an estate and that Section 5 stands as exception to Section 4 of the Act. In the case of Raj Kumar Narsing Pratap Singh Deo (supra), the apex Court recognized the existence of customary law of the royal family even after merger of the states and incorporation of Hindu Succession Act. 12. Thus, the position is now very clear that if existence of custom of lineal primogeniture is established, then Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act will protect such custom in spite of the provision of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. As has been said earlier in the case of Sri Prabir Kumar Bhanja Deo (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has ruled that customary law on primogeniture is still in force in the royal family of Keonjhar even after merger of the State and coming up of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 13. As has been said earlier in the case of Sri Prabir Kumar Bhanja Deo (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has ruled that customary law on primogeniture is still in force in the royal family of Keonjhar even after merger of the State and coming up of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 13. Admittedly, Maharaja of Estate Keonjhar, Raja N.N. Bhanjdeo had no male child or brother and his paternal uncle Laxmi Narayan Bhanjadeo declined to succeed to the 'gadi'. So, respondent-respondent No. 2, who is the son of Laxmi Narayan Bhanjadeo inherited the estate. Such inheritance is legally sanctioned as per answer to Question No. X of "Pachchis Sawal" as well as the judicial pronouncement of the Privy Council and this Court. Furthermore, when the daughter, Defendant No. 3 or the Rajmata Manoj Manjari Debit never raised any objection to such inheritance of Defendant No. 2, the Plaintiff, who is an outsider, cannot challenge the succession of Defendant No. 2 to the royal estates of Kenosha. The 1st appellate court, therefore, rightly concluded that Defendant No. 2 being the successor of Raja N.N. Bhanjdeo was the owner of the estate including the suit property and had legal right to transfer the same. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also challenged the finding of the courts below on the issue of adverse possession. But after the concurrent findings of the courts below that the Plaintiff was not in adverse possession of the suit land and never acquired title by adverse possession, there is hardly any scope to reopen that matter in the Second Appeal because the conclusion on that issue is based on analysis of the evidence as well as legal position and the approach does not appear to be perverse. 15. For the aforesaid reason, the Second Appeal is found to be without any merit and is dismissed on contest, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost. Final Result : Dismissed