JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assisted by Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Jagdeesh, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment dated 26.03.2008 and decree signed on 04.04.2008 passed by learned Sub-Judge I, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.96 of 2006, whereby, Title Suit has been dismissed. 4. Title Suit No.96 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for confirmation of possession and also seeking permanent injunction with respect to the schedule property comprising of survey Khata No. 908, Plot No. 97 measuring an area of 0.31.60 Hectare situated in Mauza Pardih Ward No. 9 J.N.A.C. (Mango) P.S. Mango, District Singhbhum East. 5. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows:- i. The suit property is agricultural land and is in possession of the plaintiff. ii. In Mauza Paridih, there has been three surveys i.e., (a) Cadastral Survey, finalized in the year 1911 (b)Revisional Survey, finalized in the year 1964 and (c) Municipal Survey, finalized in the year 1979. iii. The schedule land is a part of Cadestral Survey Plot No. 4 of Mouza Pardih and was jungle jhari, which pertains to Revisional Survey Plot No. 546 and 547 and in present survey i.e., Municipal Survey, it is Survey Plot No. 97 of Ward No. 9 of J.N.A.C. (Mango). iv. This property was in Anabad Malik Khatian of the landlord Manmohan Singh and was jungle jhari. One Rohit Majhi and his ancestor, who were the raiyats in Mouza Pardih were having khunt khatti right, and they had reclaimed the suit property involved in this case in the year 1940. Since then, Rohit Majhi and his successors have been in continuous possession of the property by growing paddy and other crops. v. As Rohit Majhi and his successors were in possession of the property, therefore, at the time of enforcement of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, said Rohit Majhi and his sons have been recorded in possession of the property published Revisional Survey, finalized in the year 1964 in raiyati khata no. v. As Rohit Majhi and his successors were in possession of the property, therefore, at the time of enforcement of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, said Rohit Majhi and his sons have been recorded in possession of the property published Revisional Survey, finalized in the year 1964 in raiyati khata no. 217 and the property involved in this case was recorded in the record of rights in the name of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi, who were successors of Rohit Majhi. vi. Said Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi, amicably divided their lands after final publication of khatian in the year 1964. vii. Said Mohan Majhi sold his share within R.S. Plot Nos. 546 and 547 to Duryodhan Mahato, son of late Jagannath Mahato by registered sale deed dated 27.01.1973. viii. Said Duryodhan Mahato, sold the western part of the land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint to the vendor of the plaintiff by two registered sale deed nos. 4162 and 4163 both dated 29.07.2003 through duly constituted attorney vide registered deed of General Power of Attorney dated 09.03.1979. ix. Said Bharat Majhi, also sold the rest part of the schedule property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint being the eastern part of the property to the plaintiff vide three registered sale deeds bearing nos. 4280, 4281, 4282 all dated 06.08.2003. x. It is specific case of the plaintiff that by virtue of aforesaid 5 sale deeds, the plaintiff purchased the entire land of R.S. Plot Nos. 546 and 547 corresponding to present survey Plot No. 97 of Ward No. 9 at Mouza Pardih, which is the property involved in the title suit. xi. Further, it was the specific case of the plaintiff that said Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were "Deshwali Majhis" and not Santhals. Accordingly, they were not members of Schedule Tribe. xii. So far as cause of action is concerned, it was specific case of the plaintiff that on 16.07.2006, the Karamchari of the State of Jharkhand posted at Jamshedpur Circle, had approached the plaintiff to evict from the property, as the property involved in the suit is recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar, and it was told that upon failing to evict, the plaintiff would be dispossessed from the schedule property by force. xiii. xiii. Further, the plaintiff had stated in the plaint that the plaintiff came to know for the first time that the property involved in the suit was recorded wrongly in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar. It was specific case of the plaintiff that the name of the Anabad Bihar Sarkar as entered in the record of rights is wrong and erroneous. xiv. The property involved in this case was shown as Don- II (second class paddy growing) in possession of Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi since 1970. xv. It was specific case of the plaintiff that said Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were the recorded tenant in the Revisional Survey of 1964. They never gave up their land to the State or to the ex-landlord before or after the enforcement of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The State never came in possession of the property involved in this case and it never vested with the State, it was all along raiyati land belonging to said Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi. Accordingly, all the sale deeds which were executed by Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi in favour of the plaintiff or through their successors were rightly executed and on this premise, the plaintiff claimed his right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff be declared. 6. As per the written statement which was filed before the learned Court below, it appears as follows:- a. The defendant opposed the plaint filed by the plaintiff on various grounds including point of limitation, barred under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, barred under Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 as well as by Bihar land Reforms Act, 1950, barred by Specific Relief Act, 1963 waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. b. It was specific case of the defendant that the property involved in this case is recorded in the name of the State Government. The land was under ex-landlord Barabhum West Bengal and on abolition of Zamindari, the entire land vested in the State of Bihar under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Thereafter, there was khanapuri and record of rights were prepared and kept in the Circle Office. There was no entry in the record of right so far as plaintiff is concerned. The land was under ex-landlord Barabhum West Bengal and on abolition of Zamindari, the entire land vested in the State of Bihar under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Thereafter, there was khanapuri and record of rights were prepared and kept in the Circle Office. There was no entry in the record of right so far as plaintiff is concerned. c. The specific case of the defendant was that if the plaintiff was in possession of the property, he should have filed petition before the Deputy Commissioner or to the competent authority under the provisions of Sections 83, 86, 89 and 90 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for correction of entries made in the record of rights, as the plaintiff had claimed that the land was wrongly recorded in the name of State of Bihar, but instead of doing so, the plaintiff had filed title suit which was beyond the period of limitation. d. It was also pleaded that the land was never jungle jhari as per the final survey settlement report. The land was never Anabad Malik khatian of the landlord Manmohan Singh. The defendant contented that entire claim of the plaintiff is wrong. It was also denied that Rohit Majhi and his successors were cultivating the land at the time of enforcement of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. e. The specific case of the defendant was that the land was recorded in the final survey settlement record in the year 1979 in the name of State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and continues to stand in the name of State Government. The defendant also denied the statement made by the plaintiff that Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were "Deshwali Majhis" and also denied the statement of the plaintiff that that Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were members of Schedule Tribe. The cause of action for filing the suit was also disputed. f. It was specific case of the defendant that if there was any objection in connection with entries made in the record of right during survey settlement operation, then appropriate petition ought to have been filed objecting to the record of right in the name of State of Bihar/Anabad Bihar Sarkar, but admittedly, no such petition was filed. 7. The following issues were framed by the lower court below in the Title Suit: I. Is the suit as framed maintainable? II. 7. The following issues were framed by the lower court below in the Title Suit: I. Is the suit as framed maintainable? II. Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action? III. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and under the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and under section 80 of C.P.C.? IV. Whether the recorded raiyat Mohan Manjhi and Bharat Manjhi are scheduled tribe Santhal or nonschedule tribe? V. Whether plaintiff has acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by virtue of said registered sale deed nos.4162 and 4163 dated 29.7.03 and registered sale deed bearing no.4280, 4281 and 4282 dated 6.8.03? VI. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for confirmation of possession over the schedule land? VII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant with respect of suit property? VIII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs, if any? 8. Oral as well as the documentary evidence were adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, whose details are as follows: Documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiff: I. Carbon copy of legal notice u/s 80 of C.P.C. dt.11.9.2006 Ext.1 II. Registered postal receipt no.1500 dated 14.9.06 Ext.2 III. Letter no.2516/Vidhi dated 18.12.06 Ext. 3 IV. Registered sale deed no. 4162 dated 29.7.03- Ext. 4 V. Registered sale deed no. 4163 dated 29.7.03 Ext.4/a VI. Disclaim deed dated 27.1.1973 Ext. 4/b VII. Registered sale deed no.4280 dated 6.8.03 Ext.5 VIII. Registered sale deed no.4282 dated 6.8.03 Ext. 5/a IX. Registered sale deed no.4281 dated 6.8.03 Ext.5/b X. Three maps part of the plaint Ext.6,6/a & 6/b XI. Registered general power of attorney dated 9.3.79 Ext. 7 XII. Certified copy of Khatian published in 1979 Ext.8 XIII. Certified copy of khatian published in 1964- Ext. 8/a XIV. Certified copy of khatian published in 1911- Ext. 8/b XV. Certified copy of khatian of 1979 of plot no.265 ward no.9 of JNAC Ext. 8/c XVI. Mutation correction slip of Mutation case no.895/01-02 Ext. 9 XVII. Mutation correction slip of Mutation case no.897/01-02- Ext.9/a XVIII. Mutation correction slip of Mutation case no.1249/01-02- Ext.9/b XIX. 8/a XIV. Certified copy of khatian published in 1911- Ext. 8/b XV. Certified copy of khatian of 1979 of plot no.265 ward no.9 of JNAC Ext. 8/c XVI. Mutation correction slip of Mutation case no.895/01-02 Ext. 9 XVII. Mutation correction slip of Mutation case no.897/01-02- Ext.9/a XVIII. Mutation correction slip of Mutation case no.1249/01-02- Ext.9/b XIX. Mutation correction slip of Mutation case no.440/02-03- Ext.9/c Oral evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiff: I. Bimal Kumar Sarkar P.W.1- Formal witness who has proved notice issued under section 80 C.P.C , exhibit1; postal receipt of the notice-Exhibit-2; state''s reply to the said notice-exhibit-3 II. Ramdeo Sharma-P.W.2- Power of attorney holder of Duryodhan Mahato. He has stated about possession of Duryodhan Mahato and also subsequent possession of the plaintiff on the basis of Exhibit 4/B, which is a Disclaim deed executed by Mohan Manjhi (one of the recorded raiyat in 1964 survey) in favour of Duryodhan Mahato. III. Bharat Manjhi P.W.3- one of the recorded raiyat in 1964 survey has deposed that he is Deswali and not Santhal and admitted the fact that he had sold 28 khathas of land (part of the suit land) to the plaintiff. Thus he claimed to be a non-tribal. IV. Md. Umar P.W.4- Formal witness who has proved four sale deeds Exhibits- 4, 4/A, 5 and 5/A. V. B.S. Gopal P.W.5- Formal witness who has proved Exhibit - 5/B VI. Vibhishan Mahato P.W.6. Private Amin, who has stated about possession of land since the time of Rohit Manjhi and has proved Exhibits- 6, 6/A and 6/B. VII. Shyamal Sarkar P.W. 7- Formal witness who has proved the power of attorney executed by Duryodhan Mahato appointing Ramdev Sharma as his attorney. VIII. Gouri Shankar Mishra P.W. 8- Plaintiff who has fully supported his case. 9. So far as defendant is concerned, neither any oral nor any documentary evidences were adduced on their behalf. 10. The learned trial court while deciding issue no.-IV has held that Mohan Manjhi and Bharat Manjhi sons of Rohit Manjhi were schedule tribe, Santhal and not Deswali Manjhi. 11. While deciding issue no. 9. So far as defendant is concerned, neither any oral nor any documentary evidences were adduced on their behalf. 10. The learned trial court while deciding issue no.-IV has held that Mohan Manjhi and Bharat Manjhi sons of Rohit Manjhi were schedule tribe, Santhal and not Deswali Manjhi. 11. While deciding issue no. V held that the mutation slips contained in Exhibit - 8/c and 9 series were not related to suit land and also held that the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff were in contravention of Section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and hence were illegal, null and void and accordingly, the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land and claim of possession based on such documents cannot be recognized by court. 12. While deciding issue no. III, the learned court below decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit was not barred by limitation, estoppels, waiver, acquiescence and under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. While deciding issue nos. I and II, the learned court below has held that having found that Mohan Manjhi and Bharat Manjhi were tribal santhal and any right, title and interest arising out of the deeds involved in this cases cannot be recognized, the learned court held that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit and accordingly the suit as framed was not maintainable. 14. While deciding issue nos. VI, VII and VIII, the learned court below held that since plaintiff had failed to prove his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, the learned court below declined to exercise its discretion under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for granting declaratory decree in connection with right, title and possession of the property involved in this case. 15. Counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment submits as under :- A. The main issue which arise for consideration in this case relates to issue nos.4 and 5 which were decided against the plaintiff/appellant. B. The specific case of the appellant is that during the course of evidence, Bharat Majhi, who was the recorded raiyat as per 1964 survey, was examined, and he, himself, had deposed that he is a ''Hindu'' and does not belong to ''Schedule Tribe'' category. B. The specific case of the appellant is that during the course of evidence, Bharat Majhi, who was the recorded raiyat as per 1964 survey, was examined, and he, himself, had deposed that he is a ''Hindu'' and does not belong to ''Schedule Tribe'' category. Bharat Majhi had deposed as P.W. 3 and the counsel submits that in view of the specific admission by Bharat Majhi, the entry made in record of right that Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi were Santhals, was incorrect. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned lower court below and accordingly, the issue no. 4 was erroneously decided against the plaintiff. C. He further submits that the issue no.4 has a direct bearing on issue no.5, in as much as, while deciding issue no.5, the learned lower court below has held that as Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were belonging to Schedule Tribe, therefore, any transfer made by them, even if registered, cannot be treated as valid or recognized by any court in exercise of any civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction and this view was taken in view of Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. D. The counsel submits that these 2 issues are the central issues involved in this case and they suffer from non-application of judicial mind and are accordingly perverse. 16. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submits as under: i. The property involved in this case was recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar and the property belongs to the State. Although, in the record of right, it was indicated that the same was in illegal possession of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi. ii. He further submits that on the one hand, the property belongs to the State and on the other hand the plaintiff claimed right, title, interest and possession over the property through Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi. iii. He further submits that the caste of Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi was recorded in the record of right as Santhal and otherwise also the property could not have been sold by Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi in favour of the plaintiff in view of bar, under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. iv. iii. He further submits that the caste of Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi was recorded in the record of right as Santhal and otherwise also the property could not have been sold by Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi in favour of the plaintiff in view of bar, under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. iv. The counsel submits that as per the provisions of Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, no transfer in contravention of sub-Section 1 can be registered or recognized as valid by any court in exercise of any civil, criminal and revenue jurisdiction. Accordingly, deeds, which were relied upon by the plaintiff for claiming right, title, interest and possession over the property could not have been considered in their favour by any court including the trial court. v. He submits that as per Section - 3 of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969, the same empowers the court to ignore any admission made by members of Schedule Tribe. Accordingly, the statement made by Bharat Majhi that he was a ''Hindu'' was rightly rejected by the learned lower court below. vi. He further submits that as per Section 84 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 every entry in the record of right, which has been published, is an evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and is assumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. vii. He submits that it was for the plaintiff to adduce cogent evidence, which was admissible in law to dispute the status of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi, as their caste was duly recorded in the record of right as Santhal, which is admittedly a Schedule Tribe. viii. He further submits that apart from this, Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi were not even a party to the suit proceeding. Although, no such specific stand was taken by the defendant in the written statement. 17. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the point for determination in this appeal would be: a) Whether the recorded raiyat Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi belonged to Schedule Tribe "Santhal" or were persons not belonging to schedule tribe? 17. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the point for determination in this appeal would be: a) Whether the recorded raiyat Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi belonged to Schedule Tribe "Santhal" or were persons not belonging to schedule tribe? (issue no.4 before the learned trial court) b) Whether the plaintiff had acquired any right, title, interest and possession over the property by virtue of Disclaim deed dated 27.1.1973, registered sale deed nos. 4162 and 4163 dated 29.07.2003 and registered sale deed bearing nos. 4280, 4281 and 4282 dated 06.08.2003? (issue no. 5 before the learned trial court) 18. So far as the point regarding the status of Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi is concerned, this Court finds that Exhibit8/A is the certified copy of the record of right published in the year 1964 and as per this Exhibit, the status of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi has been recorded as belonging to Santhals. 19. Further in Exhibit-4/b, which is, deed of disclaim dated 27.01.1973 and was exhibited by the plaintiff, the caste of Mohan Majhi has been described as Santhal. 20. This Court finds that there is a specific entry in the finally published record of right that Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were Santhal by caste. As per the provisions of Section 84 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, there is a presumption as to final publication of correctness of the record of right, and it has been provided that every entry of the record of right so published, shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence as incorrect. 21. Further, as per the provisions of Section 3 of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969, the Court have been empowered to ignore admission by member of Scheduled Tribes, which provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court shall, in any suit or proceeding relating to transfer of land of a member of the Scheduled Tribes, require any fact expressly or impliedly admitted by such person to be proved otherwise than by mere admission and the Deputy Commissioner may also produce evidence in rebuttal. 22. 22. This Court finds that the appellant has heavily relied upon the oral testimony of Bharat Majhi, who deposed before the Court below as P.W. 3 and had stated that he was ''Hindu'' because he worshiped ''Hindu God''. This statement could not be relied upon by the court below to disbelieve the entry made regarding his caste status in the record of right for two reasons. Firstly, his own brother, namely Mohan Manjhi, in the Disclaim deed (Exhibit-4/b) of the year 1973 which is in favour of Duryodhan Mahato, has stated that he was "Santhal" by caste and this document is the basis for the two sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by Duryodhan Mahato on the basis of which, the plaintiff is claiming half portion of the suit property as per the plaint, whose details have been mentioned above, referring to the case of the plaintiff. Thus, mere statement of Bharat Manjhi claiming himself to be Hindu, who had executed three deeds in favour of the plaintiff for remaining portion of the property involved in the suit, by declaring himself as a Hindu, was not enough to dislodge the aforesaid statutory presumption regarding correctness of the matters stated in the record of rights finally published under the aforesaid provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Admittedly in the record of rights, the status of Mohan Manjhi and Bharat Manjhi was shown as Santhals. Secondly, in view of Section 3 of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969, the Courts have been empowered to ignore admission by member of Scheduled Tribes, and accordingly in the facts and circumstances of this case, the so called admission made by Bharat Manjhi, by way of oral evidence, regarding his caste status, is not fit to be relied upon and has rightly been ignored by the learned trial court. 23. From perusal of the impugned judgment which has been passed by the learned court below, this Court finds that the learned court below by referring to the aforesaid provisions of Section 84 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy, Act 1908 as well as Section 3 of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 has refused to rely upon the said testimony of P.W. 3. 24. 24. This Court further finds that said Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi were never made party before the learned court below and this issue could not have been decided in their absence by merely referring to the statement of Bharat Majhi, who simply deposed as witness on behalf of plaintiff. It is relevant to note that Mohan Manjhi did not even depose as witness before the learned trial court. In such circumstances, the entry made in the record of right mentioning the status of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi as Santhal, has been rightly believed to be correct by the learned court below and accordingly, this Court finds that the issue no. 4 regarding the caste status of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi was rightly decided against of the plaintiff. 25. So far as other issue regarding reliance of the plaintiff on various sale deeds are concerned, this Court finds that as Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were belonging to the Santhal, which is admittedly a schedule tribe, therefore, the provisions of Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 comes into play and as there is a specific bar in connection with transfer of tribal properties which also specifically provides that no transfer in contravention of sub-Section 1 of Section 46 shall be registered or shall be in any way recognized as valid by any court whatsoever in exercise of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction. In such circumstances, even if the claim of the plaintiff is based on registered sale deeds, the same cannot be acknowledged and recognized by any court and has rightly not been acknowledged and recognized by the learned court below for the purpose of deciding right, title, interest or possession in connection with the property involved in this case in favour of the plaintiff. This Court finds that this issue has also been rightly decided by the learned trial court and accordingly does not call for any interference. 26. So far as other issues are concerned, no arguments have been advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and most of them ultimately revolve around the answer to issue numbers 4 and 5 as framed and decided by the learned court below and affirmed by this Court as above. 26. So far as other issues are concerned, no arguments have been advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and most of them ultimately revolve around the answer to issue numbers 4 and 5 as framed and decided by the learned court below and affirmed by this Court as above. The manner in which the other issues have been decided by the learned trial court has already been mentioned at Para 10 above, which, in the considered view of this court, do not call for any interference. 27. Accordingly, the instant appeal is, hereby, dismissed.