JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kushal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.02.2016 (Decree signed on 03.03.2016) passed by learned District Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No.46/2012 whereby and where under the learned court below dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and confirmed the judgment dated 29.02.2012 (Decree signed on 15.03.2012) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-V, East Singhbhum Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.69/1999. 3. It transpires from the judgment of the court below that the respondent/plaintiff has instituted the suit for a decree for declaration of title over the suit land and for recovery of possession of the suit land after removing the unauthorized structure raised by the defendants. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No.69 of 1999 wherein respondent/plaintiff’s case was that the suit land measuring 0.05 acres being a portion of plot no. 500, khata no. 327, situtate at Mouza Klimati, P.S. Parsudih, Distircit East Singhbhum, with a kutcha house of khapra roof bounded North-Market, South-Rasta, East-Shambhu Guha and West Sheo Kumar. The suit land along with other lands previously belonged to Abdul Rauf, son of the Salamat and Hazra Khatoon wife of late Mahboob Hussain @ Parsuhasal, H/o Hazra Khatoon in Khata No. 327, but there was a spelling mistake in the name of Mahboob Hussain. After the death of Mahboob Hussain his interest in the said land devolved upon Hazra Khatoon his widow as his legal heir and successors. While Abdul Rauf and Hazra Khatoon were in peaceful possession of the suit land, they transferred the suit land to the respondent/plaintiff by means of registered deed of sale dated 19.08.1988 bearing deed no. 5347 and delivered possession of the said land to the plaintiffs. Since the aforesaid purchase the plaintiff came in peaceful possession of the said land got his name mutated in the office of the State of Bihar and paying rent for the said land to the State of Bihar. It was further case of the respondents/plaintiffs that prior to acquisition of the land by Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain the suit land belonged to one Hasina Bibi, wife of Bajir Ali Phahalwan and accordingly the same was recorded in her name in R.S. Khata No. 221 of Mouza Kalimati. Hasina Bibi had also land and properties in Mouza-Jugsalai, apart from the suit land and other lands. Hasina Bibi had also land and properties in Mouza-Jugsalai, apart from the suit land and other lands. Said Hasina Bibi by means of registered deed of gift dated 01.05.1958 bearing deed no.2709 gifted the lands of Mouza Kalimati of R.S. Khata No.221, R.S. Plot No.37/767 measuring 0.11 acres along with her Jugsalai property to Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain both sons of late Salamat Ali, who came in possession of the said land and paying rent to the State of Bihar and thereafter R.S. Plot No.37/767 came to be recorded in the names of Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain in Plot No.500, Khata No. 327 of Mouza Kalimati in last survey of 1964. It was further case of the respondents/plaintiffs that Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain were carrying on business at Baripada in the District of Mayurbhanj(Orissa). They had also house at Jugsalai where some of their family members were residing and in some portion were being used for Nursing Home. The defendant (Raj Kumar Yadav, now deceased) was residing in the house of one Badri Lal as a tenant which is adjacent to the suit land. The defendant taking advantage of absence of Abdul Rauf and the family members of Mahboob Hussain from Jamshedpur in the month of September 1987 trespassed into a portion of the suit land and constructed Jhopri in order to keep Idols of mud manufactured by the defendants in the said place. Plaintiffs have further pleaded that the defendants after succeeding to occupy a portion of the suit land along with Gopal Paul (Murtiwala) and Narayan Ghosh, filed a Title Suit on 11.11.1987 bearing T.S. No. 216/1987 in the Court of Munsif at Jamshedpur against the plaintiffs and some other persons and sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs of the suit were made defendant nos. 3 and 4, respectively, and in that suit, they filed a written statement along with one Sheo Kumar Arora, defendant no. 2 of that suit. It was further pleaded that to hold that the plaintiffs of the said Title Suit No. 216/1987 had no title over the suit land by virtue of alleged purchase, nor they acquired title by virtue of adverse possession, by his judgment dated 09.08.1992. The present suit land is a portion of subject matter of said T.S. No. 216/1987. It was further pleaded that to hold that the plaintiffs of the said Title Suit No. 216/1987 had no title over the suit land by virtue of alleged purchase, nor they acquired title by virtue of adverse possession, by his judgment dated 09.08.1992. The present suit land is a portion of subject matter of said T.S. No. 216/1987. After the disposal of aforesaid T.S. No. 216/1987 in the month of August 1992, the appellants/defendants in connivance with each other trespassed into the Kutcha House constructed by the vendors of the respondents/plaintiffs from that place and they also extended the Jhopri over the suit land with tin roof. The suit land and the Kutcha room thereon belonged to the plaintiffs. The appellants/defendants are in illegal possession of the suit land. 4. The respondents/plaintiffs further made out a case that the cause of action for that suit arose against the defendants on and from September 1987 and on and from August, 1992 at Mouza Kalimati within the jurisdiction of that court. 5. On notice the appellants/defendants appeared and filed his written statement on 05.08.2000. The appellants/defendants in their written statement as stated that the suit is not maintainable, nor there is any cause of action for the suit. The suit is barred by limitation and also barred by provisions of CPC and Specific Relief Act. The appellants/defendants in their written statement, have denied that the suit land and some other land previously belonged to Abdul Rauf son of late Salamat and Hazra Khatoon wife of the Mahboob Hussain of Jugsalai and that the same were recorded in the name of Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain @ Parsuhasal husband of Hazra Khatoon in Khata No.327. Abdul Rauf or Hazra Khatoon or her husband never possessed the suit land. The suit land did not belong to Mahboob Hussain, nor the suit land devolved upon Hazra Khatoon his widow as legal heirs and successors. It was further case of the appellants/defendants that as per the Mohammaden Law on the death of husband his property fully does not devolve upon his widow. The property to the extent of 1/8th share only will devolve upon his widow and remaining portion of his properties will pass on his residuaries. It was also denied that the Hazra Khatoon was widow of Mahboob Hussain and she is only heirs of Mahboob Hussain. The property to the extent of 1/8th share only will devolve upon his widow and remaining portion of his properties will pass on his residuaries. It was also denied that the Hazra Khatoon was widow of Mahboob Hussain and she is only heirs of Mahboob Hussain. The appellants/defendants has also denied in the written statement that Abdul Rauf and Hazra Khatoon transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiff by means of registered deed of sale dated 19.08.1998 bearing deed no.5375 and delivered possession of the suit land to the respondents/plaintiffs as Abdul Rauf and Hazra Khatoon were not the owners of the suit land, therefore, they had no right to sell the suit land to the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title, interest or possession over the suit land by virtue of purchase. The sale deed is forged, manufactured and concocted document and without consideration and the same was not acted upon and binding on the appellants/defendants. The mutation if any made in the name of the respondents/plaintiffs is a mere paper transaction and has been done without proper notice to the parties in possession and without compliance to the rules of mutation. They have also denied that the suit land belonged to Hasina Bibi wife of Bajir Ali Pahalwan and the same was recorded in her name in R.S. Khata No.221 of Mouza Kalimati. It was also denied by the appellants/defendants that Hasina Bibi by means of registered deed of gift deed dated 01.05.1958 gifted the land recorded in R.S. Plot No.73/767 Khata No.221 Mouza Kalimati to Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain and put them in possession of the suit land. The deed of gift dated 01.05.1958 is forged, manufactured, concocted, illegal, void and inoperative document and the same has not executed by Hasina Bibi and by the aforesaid deed of gift Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain did not derive any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. The record of rights in Khata No.327 Mouja Kalimati prepared in the name of Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain is incorrect and erroneous. The present survey Khata No.327 Mouja Kalimati will not correspond to the land of R.S. Khata No.221. The record of rights in Khata No.327 Mouja Kalimati prepared in the name of Abdul Rauf and Mahboob Hussain is incorrect and erroneous. The present survey Khata No.327 Mouja Kalimati will not correspond to the land of R.S. Khata No.221. The appellants/defendants have also denied that taking advantage of absence of Abdul Rauf and family members of Mahboob Hussain from Jamshedpur in the month of September, 1987 trespassed into the portion of the suit land and constructed Jhopri in the said place. They have also contended that without appreciating the proper facts and law, the Title Suit No.216 of 1987 was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.08.1992 against that the Title Appeal No.53 of 1992 was dismissed. The appellants/defendants are in possession of the suit land since 14th May, 1973 and he has constructed one room with Tali and one room with Asbestos roof along with compound wall and residing therein with family since 1973. He has also denied that he is in unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit land. It was further case of the appellants/defendants were that on receipt of sum of Rs.10,000/-from Gopal Chand Paul (Murtiwala) son of late Maran Paul, Abdul Rauf and Parmu Ishaque delivered possession of seven kathas of land in the year 1963 and in token of the same they executed an agreement on 26.02.1964 acknowledging receipt of the entire consideration for the suit land and also delivered possession of the land in favour of Gopal Chand Paul. 6. On the above facts the trial court framed the following issues to decide the case: I. Is the suit as framed maintainable in its present form? II. Is the suit barred by limitation? III. Is the suit hit by any of the provisions of the specific relief Act? IV. Has the plaintiffs got valid cause of action of the present suit? V. Have the plaintiffs got right, title and interest over the suit property or not? VI. Whether the defendants have encroached any portion of the plaintiffs land as claimed or not? VII. Have the defendants any right, title, interest over the suit land? VIII. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get any relief as claimed for? IX. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get cost of the suit? X. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get any other relief or relief’s? 7. The respondents/plaintiffs have examined altogether three witnesses as P.Ws. VII. Have the defendants any right, title, interest over the suit land? VIII. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get any relief as claimed for? IX. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get cost of the suit? X. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get any other relief or relief’s? 7. The respondents/plaintiffs have examined altogether three witnesses as P.Ws. and got exhibited as exhibits 1 to 10. 8. The appellants/defendants have examined altogether four witnesses as D.Ws. and exhibited as Ext. A to Ext.K. 9. The trial court entered into the discussions of the witnesses as well as the documents relied by both the parties and discussed the witnesses and documents on behalf of the parties and came to the finding that the appellants/defendants have no right, title and possession over the suit land, accordingly, these issues were decided against the appellants/defendants and in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 10. Aggrieved with the judgment the appellants/defendants has filed the Title Appeal being Title Appeal No.46 of 2016 before the District Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The appellate court also entered into the detailed discussions of the lis and examined the witnesses adduced by the parties and also considered the exhibits relied by the parties with regard to the adverse possession. 11. The appellate court came to the finding on perusal of the Ext.8 i.e. the certified copy of the judgment passed in Title Suit No.216/1987 in which the original defendant was one of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs of this case was defendant in that suit and in that suit the defendant of that case has lost his case which has been filed by him and other for declaration of right, title by virtue of purchase on payment of Rs.10,000/-and by adverse possession and that the suit of the defendant of this case was dismissed and it was upheld up to the second appeal (Ext.10) by the High Court and so all the documents filed on behalf of the defendant has been filed in that Title Suit No.216 of 1987 and the defendant has lost his case up to the second appeal regarding the right, title. So the defence of the defendant has been barred by principal of res judicata and he cannot re-agitate same claim as defence in that suit and also from Ext.10 it has come clearly, the finding is that the defendant of that suit and the plaintiff of the Title Suit No.216 of 1987 is mainly in permissive possession and there is no any right, title and interest of the defendant in the suit property. 12. The appellate court while deciding the same, the ground taken by the appellants/defendants with regard to the adverse possession, came to the finding that the Title Suit No.216 of 1987 has already been decided against the appellants/defendants, is barred by principle of res judicata. After considering the entire things, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed in Title Suit No.69 of 1999. 13. Mr. Kushal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the trial court has not discussed the point of the appellants on adverse possession. He further submits that the Title Suit No.216 of 1987 was decided earlier and the suit has been instituted in the year 1999 which was filed after lapse of 12 years and the trial court as well as the appellate court was erred in law in deciding the adverse possession taking the view that it is barred by res judicata. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants this Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court after discussing the oral as well documentary evidences produced by both the parties came to the finding that the respondents/plaintiffs have valid cause of action of the suit and it was decreed. So far as the point of adverse possession which has been argued on behalf of the appellants, it is submitted that it is a substantial question of law for admitting this Second Appeal. This Court further finds that this plea has been taken by the appellants in the earlier Title Suit No.216 of 1987 which has been confirmed by this Court in the Second Appeal, thus, this Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court has rightly come to the conclusion that the point of adverse possession is not available in favour of the appellants/defendants. This Court is conscious of the fact that this Court is sitting under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is not inclined to enter into the discussions the evidences and the documents relied upon by the parties and there is concurrent finding of two fact finding courts and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. This Court further finds that there is no perversity in the judgment. 15. Accordingly, the Second Appeal No.284 of 2016 stands dismissed.