JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2007 and 26.09.2007 respectively passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.80 of 1999 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1999 passed by the Additional Sub-Judge-VI, Ranchi in Title Suit No.265 of 1986. 2. For proper appreciation of the matter it would be necessary to refer to the case of the parties. The plaintiffs case is that the suit property was owned and posessed by Durga Oraon and Bijla Oraon and they are governed by the Oraon customary law in the matter of inheritance. That Durga Oraon died before the revisional survey leaving behind his widow Sonia Orain @ Duria Orain and several daughters. Bijla Oraon died leaving behind Mahli Oraon and Chunda Oraon. Mahli Oraon died leaving behind Karma Oraon (original plaintiff). Chunda Oraon died leaving behind his son Mahli Oraon. It is averred that at the time of revisional survey the suit properties were in possession of Sonia Orain @ Duria Orain, widow of Durva Oraon who used to get the land cultivated through her Son-In-law Dewa Oraon due to which the suit property was wrongly recorded in the name of Dewa Oraon. That Dewa Oraon died leaving behind his son Dayal Oraon who also died leaving behind his son defendant No.1. 3. The plaintiffs case is that Durga Oraon died without any male issue and hence as per customary law the property of Durga devolved upon his nearest male agnates and the plaintiffs grand father came into cultivating possession of the suit property. That in a criminal case filed by Dewa Oraon and Sonia Orain @ Duria Orain against the grand father of the plaintiffs, the grand father of the plaintiff was acquitted whereafter Dewa Oraon and Sonia Orain instituted Title Suit No.134 of 1932 against the grand father of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the said suit was decided on 25.06.1934 wherein it was held that Sonia Orain @ Duria Orain was entitled to the usufruct of the suit property for her maintenance during her life time. It was also held that Dewa Oraon was not the “ghar damad” of late Durga Oraon and therefore, he had no right, title and interest or ownership possession over the suit property. It was also held that Dewa Oraon was not the “ghar damad” of late Durga Oraon and therefore, he had no right, title and interest or ownership possession over the suit property. Since the other agnates of Durga Oraon who were arrayed as defendant in the suit did not claim the suit property hence they were not made party in the present suit. It is stated that Sonia Orain @ Duria Orain died and the plaintiff as the only male agnates are entitled to possession of the suit property. That they demanded the possession of the suit property but defendant No.1 refused to accept their claim. It is alleged that defendant No.1 has leased out Plot No.301 measuring area of 2 acres to defendant No.3 for running brick kiln on annual rent of Rs.1300/-and plot No.413 measuring area of one acre to defendant No.4 on a monthly rent of Rs.1200/-for the purpose of Chuna Bhatha. It is alleged that defendant No.1 also leased out the said plot to defendant No.3 for the last 8 years and to defendant No.4 for last three years. That defendant No.1 has no right or was not entitled to lease out or receive the rent from defendant No.3 and 4 and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover wrongful gain made by defendant No.1. On the above grounds, the plaintiff sought a decree for declaration of the right, title and interest and for possession of the suit property. 4. Defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement contesting the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, waiver, acquiescence, ouster and adverse possession. It was averred that the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as five issues as under:- (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? (ii) Have the plaintiffs got any valid cause of action for the suit ? (iii) Whether the suit property was settled with Dewa Oraon by the Ex-landlord ? (iv) Whether Dewa Oraon and Sonia Orain had filed Title Suit No.134/32 against the grandfather of the plaintiff ? (v) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the relief or reliefs as claimed in the plaint ? 6. (iii) Whether the suit property was settled with Dewa Oraon by the Ex-landlord ? (iv) Whether Dewa Oraon and Sonia Orain had filed Title Suit No.134/32 against the grandfather of the plaintiff ? (v) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the relief or reliefs as claimed in the plaint ? 6. The plaintiff examined seven witnesses and adduced documentary evidence i.e. the certified copy of judgment of Title Suit No.134/32 (Ext-2), certified copy of judgment of Sub-Deputy Magistrate passed under Section 447 of the I.P.C. (Ext-3). 7. The defendants also examined seven witnesses and adduced the jamindari receipts Ext-A to A/3, jamindari receipts Ext-A/ 4 to A/6 and Government rent receipt Ext-B and Khatiyan Ext-C and the written statement of defendant No.1 filed in Title Suit No.265/1986 (Ext-8). On the basis of the material evidence on record the court below decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved the defendants preferred the aforesaid title appeal and the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, consequently this second appeal has been carried to this court. 8. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has assailed the impugned judgment stating that the court below has committed perversity in the findings as it failed to appreciate that in C.S. Khata No.33, the lands were recorded in the name of Durga Oraon only and on demise of Durga Oraon, in absence of any surviving legal heirs the landlord resumed the land and came into possession. Thereafter the land was settled in favour of Dewa Oraon in his individual capacity and not as “ghar damad” of Sonia Orain. That Dewa Oraon was in possession of the land since 1935 and he acquired an indefeasible right and interest of the property which is established by Exhibit-s-A to A/6, Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C and Exhibit-4 filed by the appellants. That Dewa Oraon continued to be in uninterrupted possession of the land for more than 30 years and he has perfected his title by adverse possession. That the court below should have considered the fact that neither Bijla Oraon nor the co-sharer of Durga Oraon claiming the land, took any steps for correction of entries made in records of right. That the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs have made contradictory statement regarding the title of Sonia Orain. That they have stated that the limestone quarry and the brick kiln belongs to the defendants. That the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs have made contradictory statement regarding the title of Sonia Orain. That they have stated that the limestone quarry and the brick kiln belongs to the defendants. That the plaintiffs have not proved the death certificate of Sonia Orain. That the courts below have failed to appreciate that after death of Bijla Oraon and Sonia Orain, Dewa Oraon had applied for settlement of the land and the same was settled in terms of the order passed in Settlement Case No.82 of 1935-36. It is argued by the learned counsel that the reasonings assigned by the court below that the suit is not barred by adverse possession and the defendants have not perfected the title is perverse and against the settled principle of law. 9. Having heard the counsels and on going through the impugned judgment of the appellate court, it is not disputed that both the parties are Oraon by caste and are guided by customary law governing the Oraon tribe in matter of inheritance and succession. The courts below have considered the fact that Dewa Oraon, grand father of defendant No.1 and Most. Duria Orain, widow of Durga Oraon filed Title Suit No.134 of 1932 against Bijla Oraon, Mahli Oraon and others who were the ancestors of the plaintiff. It is admitted that Durga Oraon was recorded raiyat of the suit plot in the C.S. Survey and he died leaving behind his wife Sonia Orain @ Duria Orain and several daughters. It is not disputed that in Title Suit No.134 of 1932 dated 18.07.1933 which was filed by Dewa Orain and Most. Duria Orain against Baijla, Mahli and others i.e. the ancestors of the plaintiffs/respondents, wherein Dewa Oraon failed to establish that Durga Oraon had adopted him as “ghar damad” according to the Oraon customs and he was married to the daughter of Durga Oraon and was living in the house of Durga Oraon and cultivating his land and on death of Durga Oraon the widow executed a deed of gift of the property in favour of Dewa Oraon whereafter he got his name mutated in the sarista of landlord and he has been paying the rent of the land regularly. That Bijla Oraon who was the nearest male agnate of Durga Oraon started forcibly cultivating the plot and a criminal case under Section 447 of the I.P.C. was filed against him but he was acquitted. That on acquittal said Bijla dispossessed Dewa Oraon from all the suit lands. The defendants who are the grandsons of Dewa Oraon have tried to set up the case of oral settlement of the suit plots in favour of Dewa Oraon by the landlord on demise of Durga Oraon. It is alleged that by the said settlement Dewa Oraon was recorded as raiyat in the revisional survey and started cultivating the land and has been coming in continuous possession of the same. The appellate court has considered the findings in Title Suit No.134 of 1932 wherein the written statement filed by the defendant in the present suit was in contradiction to the one made in the Title Suit No.134 of 1932 and as per Section 115 of the Evidence Act the law of estoppal was applicable as the defendant could not take a contrary stand to that which their ancestor Dewa Oraon had taken in Title Suit No.134 of 1932. The appellate court has held that in the Title Suit No.134 of 1932 it was held that Dewa Oraon was not the “ghar damad” and Durgi Orain was the owner of the suit land for the limited purpose for maintenance and enjoyment by her of the usufruct till her life. Both the courts below have held that this finding operates as res-judicata against the defendants of the present appeal and the plea of oral settlement and continued possession could not be believed. Admittedly the judgment in Title Suit No.134 of 1932 was not challenged hence, the same is binding on the defendants as it has attained finality. The courts below also disbelieved the continued possession and rightly held that the entry of the records of right and the rent receipts neither create title nor possession in favour of any party and the ancestors of Defendant No.1 had admitted in Title Suit No.134 of 1932 that they were dispossessed and there was no averment that the said ancestors had re-entered or came into possession after pronouncement of the said judgment. 10. 10. Therefore in view of the discussion it is evident that the court below has appreciated and examined the evidence thoroughly hence in the considered opinion of this court it is held that there is no perversity or arbitrariness in the findings of the lower appellate court consequently no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. In the result this appeal stands dismissed.