ORDER : I.A. No.2926 of 2018 1. This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants, proposing further substantial questions of law, copy of which has already been served to the counsel for the respondents and replied through Rejoinder, to be considered by this Court, which are as under:- “(i) Whether in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the plaintiff has to prove his case. He cannot take advantage of defendant’s weakness? (ii) Whether both the courts below have seriously erred in not considering Exhibit-E evidence of Jumauddin Ansari in Case No. C 780 of 2001, otherwise the suit was barred by law of limitation?” 2. Considering the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants and respondents, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.2926 of 2018 is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed by the appellants is accepted by this Court. I.A. No.2894 of 2018 3. By way of filing this interlocutory application being I.A. No.2894 of 2018, prayer has been made by the appellants to adduce additional evidence viz. to bring on record the alleged Sada Hukumnama and rent receipt, which are mentioned in their written statement as well as in sale deed i.e. Ext-B which could not brought on record either before the trial court or before the Appellate Court. 4. After considering the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, this Court is of the view that additional evidence cannot be allowed to be led, at this stage, in order to fill the gap or lacuna of any party and this piece of evidence neither can change result of the case nor required for pronouncing Judgment. 5. Accordingly. I.A. No. 2894 of 2018 is dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The present appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants, who lost in both the court below. 8. A suit being Title Suit No.42 of 2000 has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on 25.03.2000 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, recorded in the name of one Sk. Pachu (ex-landlord), pertaining to Khata No.143, Plot No.300, Khewat No.3/2 measuring 49 decimals, situated at Village-Nagri, Thana-No.53, P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi and also for recovery of possession. 9. The case of the plaintiff is that his predecessor, namely, Sk. Pachu (ex-landlord), pertaining to Khata No.143, Plot No.300, Khewat No.3/2 measuring 49 decimals, situated at Village-Nagri, Thana-No.53, P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi and also for recovery of possession. 9. The case of the plaintiff is that his predecessor, namely, Sk. Pachu was the ex-landlord, who was in need of money and, therefore, he gave the suit property to one Hasan Ali for four years on receipt of Rs. 12/- (Rupees Twelve) as oral Zarpeshgi. Further claim of the plaintiff is that the suit land was resumed after expiry of four years and thereafter the predecessor, namely, Sk. Pachu was continuously in possession till 1969 i.e. till the date of death. 10. The name of Sk. Pachu was recorded in revisional survey record of right prepared in the year 1935. Plaintiff being the only son inherited the said property and was continuing in peaceful possession of the same, till he was illegally dispossessed by the defendants on 04.11.2001. Aggrieved with the disturbing act/attitude of the defendants, the plaintiff preferred Title Suit No. 42 of 2000 for declaration of his right, title and interest. However, after filing the suit the plaintiff having been dispossessed from the suit property on 04.11.2001, further prayer for recovery of possession was also made, by way of amendment. 11. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statement, taking defence that the suit land was settled to one Sk. Hayat in the year 1939 vide Sada Hukumnama and said Sk. Hayat sold the said land jointly in favour of four brothers, namely, Sk. Khushmuddin, Sk. Hasmuddin, Sk. Karimuddin and Sk. Naimuddin all sons of Sk. Sobrati, through registered sale deed dated 28.02.1974 (Ext-A). Thereafter, vide sale deed dated 10.06.1975 (Ext-B), the said four brothers sold the suit land to one Sk. Alimuddin, who is father of the present defendants-appellants. 12. It has further been claimed that Sk. Alimuddin died on 11.01.1997, leaving behind the defendants, who being legal heirs of Sk. Alimuddin, are in continuous possession of the suit land. 13. The trial court has framed the following issues which are reproduced hereinbelow:- 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence? 4. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession? 5. 13. The trial court has framed the following issues which are reproduced hereinbelow:- 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence? 4. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession? 5. Whether the suit is barred u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act? 6. Whether the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff Sk. Pachu during his lifetime settled the suit land in favour of Sk. Hayat by Hukumnama in the year 1939. 7. Whether plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? 8. To what any other relief/reliefs the plaintiff entitled to? 14. The Trial Court after hearing the parties and evaluating all the evidence on record, has given its finding in favour of the plaintiff and thereby, the suit has been decreed. 15. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, passed by the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal being Title Appeal No.47 of 2014. The 1st Appellate Court has considered the issues framed by the trial court and has returned the finding issue-wise. The Appellate Court has affirmed the finding given by the trial court on each and every issue and thus the defendants have lost the case before both the courts below and as such being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 16. The present second appeal has been admitted on 07.07.2017 and in this appeal following substantial questions of law has been framed by this Court while hearing the second appeal:- “(i) Whether finding of learned courts below holding Ext.A and Ext.B having no legal sanctity is substantial in view of absence of its challenge on merit by the plaintiffs and/or prayer for setting them aside or their cancellation?” (ii) Whether in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the plaintiff has to prove his case. He cannot take advantage of defendant’s weakness? (iii) Whether both the courts below have seriously erred in not considering Exhibit-E evidence of Jumauddin Ansari in Case No. C 780 of 2001, otherwise the suit was barred by law of limitation?” Appellants: 17. He cannot take advantage of defendant’s weakness? (iii) Whether both the courts below have seriously erred in not considering Exhibit-E evidence of Jumauddin Ansari in Case No. C 780 of 2001, otherwise the suit was barred by law of limitation?” Appellants: 17. Learned counsel for the appellants referring to the first substantial question of law, has submitted that Ext-A i.e. sale deed dated 28.02.1974 and Ext-B i.e. sale deed dated 10.06.1975, have not been challenged by the plaintiff, in spite of fact that plaint has been amended for recovery of possession and they were aware by that time through written statement, regarding the existence of the above two sale deeds. 18. Since, sale deeds have not been challenged by the plaintiff and as such the suit itself was not maintainable and was fit to be rejected on the ground of defective prayer itself. 19. So far as, second substantial question of law regarding, onus upon the plaintiff is concerned, learned counsel has referred to the judgment, as reported in 2014 AIR SCW 580 in the case of Union of India vrs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4702/2004 dated 07.01.2014 wherein in para-15 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.” 20. Referring to above decision, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case and he cannot take advantage of weakness of defendant’s case. Except Exts.1 and 2 i.e. Khewat and Khatian, no other documentary evidence have been produced by the plaintiff, which could suggest that the land in question has not vested in the state. Nothing has been brought on record to substantiate that the plaintiff and his predecessor were in continuous possession of the suit land and except the statement made in the plaint, no evidence has been produced by them. Nothing has been brought on record to substantiate that the plaintiff and his predecessor were in continuous possession of the suit land and except the statement made in the plaint, no evidence has been produced by them. The courts below have not appreciated this fact in right perspective and accordingly, it ought to have been held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land. 21. So far as, third substantial question of law is concerned, it has been submitted that Ext-E is the evidence given by the plaintiff’s witness in a proceeding u/s 144 of Cr.P.C. just before filing of the suit wherein it has been clearly stated that the defendant-appellant were in possession of the suit land since 1975. If this piece of evidence could have been considered by the trial court then the present suit is barred under the law of limitation. 22. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that on all the three substantial question of law, the present second appeal should be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by both the courts below, as the plaintiff has failed to prove their title over the suit land. Respondent: 23. Learned counsel for the respondent firstly submitted that the concurrent finding has been recorded by both the courts below and as such the present second appeal is not maintainable. 24. Countering the first substantial question of law, framed vide order dated 07.07.2017, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that law on the issue is well settled that if sale deed has been executed by any stranger to the property, then there is no requirement of challenging the same. The simple prayer has been made for declaration of right, title and interest and there is no legal requirement to challenge the sale deeds. For this purpose, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2006 Orissa 21 in the case of Pragnya Rout V. Hemaprava Ray & Ors. in R.F.A. No. 80/2003 dated 12.08.2005, wherein in Para-22, the Hon’ble Orissa High Court has held as under:- “22. Law is well settled that a decree and/or a registered document which is otherwise ab initio void need not be set aside. in R.F.A. No. 80/2003 dated 12.08.2005, wherein in Para-22, the Hon’ble Orissa High Court has held as under:- “22. Law is well settled that a decree and/or a registered document which is otherwise ab initio void need not be set aside. Such decree does not strip the right of a party who is the real owner and was not a signatory to the document in question or a party to the suit. It is not the law that merely because somebody has obtained a sale deed he has got title to the property as vendee and his title has to be declared so long as the deed has not been set aside by a competent Court of law. If the deed is void at the threshold, no steps need be taken to set it aside. The vendor may not have title to convey, and in such a case the title deed conveys no title and can be ignored as not worth the paper written on. (see (1992) 2 OLR 362 Sarbeswar v. Commissioner, Consolidation.) In view of such position of law, the argument advanced by Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of a prayer to set aside the subsequent sales cannot be accepted.” It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Prem Singh & Ors. vs. Birbal & Ors. ( AIR 2006 SC 3608 ) wherein Para-16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “16. When a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity.” 26. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the substantial question of law formulated vide order dated 07-07-2017 does not remain any further Res - Integra to be answered by this Court in the light of the settled legal preposition of law cited above. 27. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the substantial question of law formulated vide order dated 07-07-2017 does not remain any further Res - Integra to be answered by this Court in the light of the settled legal preposition of law cited above. 27. It is settled legal prepositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that to be a substantial question of law, it must be debatable, not previously settled by law of land. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., ( AIR 1962 SC 1314 ), para 5 and 6 : “5. … when a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular facts of the case it would not be a substantial question of law. 6.... The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether if directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.” 28. In view of the above settled legal principles of law, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the substantial questions of law as formulated in present appeal are not substantial questions of law. 29. In view of the above settled legal principles of law, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the substantial questions of law as formulated in present appeal are not substantial questions of law. 29. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Ramathal vs. Maruthathal and others. ( AIR 2018 SC 340 ) wherein Paras-14 and 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 14. It was not appropriate for the High Court to embark upon the task of re-appreciation of evidence in the second appeal and disturb the concurrent findings of fact of the court below which are the fact findings courts. At this juncture for better appreciation we deem fit it appropriate to extract sections 100 and 103 CPC which reads as follows:- Section 100: (1) ………………. (2) …………….. (3) ……………. (4) ……………. (5) …………….. Section 103: Power of High Court………………………………….. (a)……………….. Or (b)……………. 16. When the intention of the legislature is so clear the courts have no power to enlarge the scope of Section 100 for whatsoever reasons. Justice has to be administered in accordance with law. In the case on hand the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the well considered judgment of the courts below which is based on cogent reasoning. The learned Judge ought not to have entered the arena of re appreciation of the evidence, hence, the whole exercise done by the High Court is beyond the scope and jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 C.P. 30. So far as, second substantial question of law regarding onus upon the plaintiff is concerned, it has been submitted that there is concurrent finding by both the courts below that plaintiff’s predecessor was intermediary and the suit land being Bakast land, after vesting of Jamindari, the predecessor of the plaintiff became statutory tenant and as such, the predecessor of plaintiff was holder of right, title and interest over the suit land in his own capacity. 31. The courts below has given specific finding on the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence that the plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit land since 1939 to 2001. As there is concurrent finding by both the courts below regarding possession of the plaintiff and as such issue no.2 raised by the appellant is not sustainable. 32. The courts below has given specific finding on the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence that the plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit land since 1939 to 2001. As there is concurrent finding by both the courts below regarding possession of the plaintiff and as such issue no.2 raised by the appellant is not sustainable. 32. Learned counsel for the respondent while relying upon the judgment reported in AIR 1971 Patna 249 in the case of Smt. Purni Devi & Ors. Vrs. Shibu Mahton & Ors. has submitted that entry in Khatian proves that plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit land. In Para-10 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Patna High Court has held as under:- 10. Exhibit Sha was filed on behalf of the appellants to show that the award in both the cases was prepared in the name of Nathuram Poddar. In my view, it has been rightly contended on behalf of the appellants that since the award was prepared in the name of Nathuram Poddar, there was heavy onus on the contesting respondents to establish their title and possession over the disputed lands. That apart, Khatian of village Barmasia which was finally published on the 23rd of January, 1925, was also filed on behalf of the appellants and marked as Exhibit-Da. In the khatian the names of Shyam Mahton son of Dibu Mahton, Banu Mahton and Dewan Mahton sons of Gurucharan Mahton residents of village Barmasia find mention. The land measuring 22 decimals in plot no.238 is shown in occupation of Banu Mahton and Dewan Mahton in equal Shares. There is a statutory presumption of correctness of the entries made in the khatian as well as there is a presumption of continuity of possession of Banu Mahton and Dewan Mahton over the disputed lands. Therefore, there was heavy onus on the contesting respondents to rebut those presumptions.” 33. So far as, issue no.3 regarding evidence of Jamauddin Ansari in Case No.780 of 2001 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that issue no.2 and 3 are more or less on the same point. By Ext-E, the appellants have tried to import the evidence to the effect that defendants-appellants were in possession of the suit land since 1975. 34. By Ext-E, the appellants have tried to import the evidence to the effect that defendants-appellants were in possession of the suit land since 1975. 34. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that this is not the only piece of evidence rather there were other oral evidence available to the trial court as well as Appellate Court. This plaintiff itself has produced six oral witnesses and the respondents have also produced eight oral witnesses. So, apart from documentary evidence sufficient oral evidence were available and on considering all evidence the finding has been recorded by both the courts below that the plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit land since 1939 till 2001. 35. So far as, evidentiary value of Ext-E is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729 , wherein in Para-26 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “26. Any finding in a criminal proceeding by no stretch of imagination would be binding in a civil proceeding. In M.S. Sheriff and Anr. v. State of Madras and Ors. AIR 1954 SCR 397, a constitution Bench of this Court was seized with a question as to whether a civil suit or a criminal case should be stayed in the event both are pending. It was opined that the criminal matter should be given precedence. In regard to the possibility of conflict in decisions, it was held that the law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. It was held that the only relevant consideration was the likelihood of embarrassment.” 36. Referring to para-26, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no much value to the evidence given by stranger to the family or property can be attached to Ext-E, which was beyond the issue involved in the said complaint case. Finding: 37. In view of the findings recorded by both the courts below, it appears that the plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit land since 1939 to 2001. The basis of the finding was Ext-1 and 2 and the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff. 38. Finding: 37. In view of the findings recorded by both the courts below, it appears that the plaintiff is in continuous possession over the suit land since 1939 to 2001. The basis of the finding was Ext-1 and 2 and the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff. 38. Prayer for producing Sada Hukumnama and Rent receipt as additional evidence is concerned, no benefit can be claimed on the basis of Sada Hukumnama, the appellants have to proof actual possession over suit land as per Full Bench judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1968 Patna 302, Para-10, which is quoted hereinbelow:- 10. It is true that a valid agricultural lease may be created by a registered instrument as pointed out in Jangal Singh v. Mukund Kumar, AIR 1948 Pat 446, and, if such a registered document is created, delivery of possession is not necessary to prove the title of the lessee. If, however, the lease is not registered, and is, therefore, inadmissible as evidence of title, it will always be open to the tenant concerned to show that he obtained raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord. There is also no legal bar to a person claiming raiyati interest on two alternative pleas. He may claim such a right on the basis of a written document of lease. If, however, such claim fails on the ground that the document, being compulsorily registrable, was not registered, nevertheless his alternative claim based on actual possession, coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord, may succeed. In that case, the un-registered lease will be admissible for the collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession. 39. Thus, Sada Hukumnama, being unregistered is inadmissible evidence of title. Tenant concern has to prove raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord. 40. In present case, the possession over the suit land has been negated by both the courts below, by giving concurrent finding, so, this piece of evidence is not going to help the present appellants otherwise also. Substantial question of law:- (i) “Whether finding of learned courts below holding Ext.A and Ext.B having no legal sanctity is substantial in view of absence of its challenge on merit by the plaintiffs and/or prayer for setting them aside or their cancellation?” 41. Substantial question of law:- (i) “Whether finding of learned courts below holding Ext.A and Ext.B having no legal sanctity is substantial in view of absence of its challenge on merit by the plaintiffs and/or prayer for setting them aside or their cancellation?” 41. From the argument of both the sides and judgment cited by both the courts below, the legal position, which emerges is that if a sale deed is void ab-initio, there is no requirement to challenge the same. In the present case, the fact which stands settled, is that the so called Sada Hukumnama has not conveyed any title to Sk. Hayat and as such, any subsequent transaction made by the persons, who were claiming right, title and interest through the said Sada Hukumnama is nullity and there is no requirement of law to challenge the same. (ii) “Whether in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the plaintiff has to prove his case. He cannot take advantage of defendant’s weakness? 42. So far as this substantial question of law is concerned, the fact, which stands finally proved is that both the parties have admitted that the original owner of the suit land is Sk. Pachu. The said Sk. Pachu settled the said land in favour of Hasan Ali for four years and thereafter, the same has been resumed by Sk. Pachu. These facts are admitted by both the sides. In view of the said admission and evidence on record and finding recorded by both the courts below, the plaintiff gets right, title and interest over the said suit land by operation of law and inheritance. The possession of the plaintiff has also been declared by both the courts below. The suit land can be ousted from inheritance of the plaintiff by means of any transfer. The defence has been taken by the defendants that the said land belongs to their family members by means of Sada Hukumnama, as the same has been settled by way of Sada Hukumnama in favour of Sk. Hayat but the said Sada Hukumnama and rent receipt, as demanded by both the courts below, have never been produced. It is also relevant to consider that Ext.A, which is 1st sale deed executed by Sk. Hayat but the said Sada Hukumnama and rent receipt, as demanded by both the courts below, have never been produced. It is also relevant to consider that Ext.A, which is 1st sale deed executed by Sk. Hayat, there is no mention of Sada Hukumnama and this document is exhibited as Ext.A. In Exhibit-B, there is mention of Sada Hukumnama which is in continuation of Ext.A and subsequent transfer, this also creates doubt regarding existence of Sada Hukumnama. Be that as it may, both the courts below have given concurrent finding, rejecting the defence of the respondents regarding carving out suit property from the line of inheritance through Sada Hukumnama. Further the plaintiff has proved his right, title and interest over the said land on the basis of inheritance and his genealogy has also not been disputed. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the 2nd substantial question of law as framed and accordingly, the same is answered against the appellants and in favour of the plaintiff. (iii) Whether both the courts below have seriously erred in not considering Exhibit-E evidence of Jumauddin Ansari in Case No. C 780 of 2001, otherwise the suit was barred by law of limitation?” 43. This substantial question of law, regarding non-consideration of Ext.E is beyond the fact of the present case. The said piece of evidence has been considered by both the courts below. Apart from this piece of evidence, there is other evidence on record before the court below. Evidence produced before the trial court are as follows:- P.W.1: Md. Habib Ansari. P.W.2: Mahanti Munda. P.W.3: Mubarak Ansari. P.W.4 Dhaneshwar Ram. P.W.5 Mahibul Ansari. P.W.6 Mahmood Ansari. P.W.7 Abdul Aziz. P.W.8 Md. Yusuf Ansari (Plaintiff) Ext.1 Certified copy of Khatiyan of Khata No.143. Ext.2 Terij of Khewat No.3/2 of Mauza-Nagari, Thana-Ranchi, Dist. Ranchi. D.W.1 Abdul Quddus. D.W.2 Badaruddin Ansari. D.W.3 Gulam Murtaja. D.W.4 Md. Rafique Ansari. D.W.5 Gulam Mustafa (Defendant). Ext. A Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.02.1974 (with objection) Ext. B Sale deed dated 10.06.1975. Ext. C Banda Parcha of Sabique Khata No.143. Ext.D Certified copy of order dated 28.01.2000 passed in Misc. No.2043/1999 by S.D.O. Ext.E Certified copy of deposition of Jumauddin Ansari in Complaint Case No.780/2001. Ext.F Certified copy of judgment dated 05.05.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.1255 of 2006. B Sale deed dated 10.06.1975. Ext. C Banda Parcha of Sabique Khata No.143. Ext.D Certified copy of order dated 28.01.2000 passed in Misc. No.2043/1999 by S.D.O. Ext.E Certified copy of deposition of Jumauddin Ansari in Complaint Case No.780/2001. Ext.F Certified copy of judgment dated 05.05.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.1255 of 2006. Ext.G Certified copy of judgment dated 30.08.2003 passed in Complaint Case No.780 of 2001. On the issue of possession over the suit land, there is oral evidence of different plaintiff’s witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1 to 8 as above, apart from Exhibits 1, 2, E, F and G. The defendants have also adduced 5 defence witnesses, as above, on the point of possession. Considering the above evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial court has returned the finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since 1939 and this fact has been confirmed by both the courts below. 44. In view of the above factual backgrounds, this substantial question is also answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the appellants. 45. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, I find no merit in this second appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. 46. In view of the above, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.6676 of 2016 stands disposed of.