JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 14.03.2016 decree signed on 28.03.2016 passed by Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 121 of 2008, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and judgment dated 26.08.2008 decree signed on 08.09.2008 passed by Sub Judge-II, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 107 of 2001 has been affirmed. 2. The appellant/defendant filed a suit for decree for removal of encroachment over scheduled land along with prayer to put the plaintiff in possession over the same by removing all unauthorized and illegal structures and construction standing thereon. In the plaint it was averred that the lands comprised within R.S. Khewat No. 4/1, Khata No.1, Plot No. 31 of village Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi previously belonged to Md. Ghasif Khan of village Bariatu as his Chhaparbandi holding. Ghasif Khan through the registered deed of settlement dated 4.07.1955 made settlement of the aforesaid plot having an area of 0.24 acres to Mostt. Aigun Bibi which was sub-divided as sub-plot no. 31/A measuring an area of 0.24 acres to Smt. Kalawati Devi Jalan widow of Chiranjee Lal Jalan of Upper Bazar, Ranchi through registered deed of sale dated 27.02.1959. The said Kalawati Jalan through the registered deed of sale dated 24.10.1962 sold and transferred the aforesaid land of 0.24 acres of sub-plot no. 31/A to Smt. Anusuia Jhunjhunwala wife of Arjun Lal Jhunjhunwala of Upper Bazar, Ranchi. All the aforesaid transfers were made on receipt of the valuable consideration amount and the purchasers came in peaceful possession over their purchased lands and acquired valid right, title and interest over the same. Smt. Ansuia Jhunjhunwalla constructed a small house over her purchased area of 0.24 acre and the house was named as “Anusuia Kutir” wherein she time to time resided. Thereafter, Anusuia Jhunjhunwalla executed an unregistered Will on 07.08.1984 in favour of her daughter-in-law namely (1) Smt. Urmila Jhunjhunwala, W/o Jyoti Prakash Jhunjhunwala (2) Smt. Sudha Jhunjhunwalla, W/o Deepak Jhunjhunwala and (3) Smt. Champa Jhunjhunwala, W/o Ravishanker Jhunjhunwalla. Thereafter, Anusuia Jhunjhunwalla executed an unregistered Will on 07.08.1984 in favour of her daughter-in-law namely (1) Smt. Urmila Jhunjhunwala, W/o Jyoti Prakash Jhunjhunwala (2) Smt. Sudha Jhunjhunwalla, W/o Deepak Jhunjhunwala and (3) Smt. Champa Jhunjhunwala, W/o Ravishanker Jhunjhunwalla. After death of Anusuia Jhunjhunwalla the probate of the aforesaid Will somehow or the other could not be obtained in favour of the aforesaid legatees under the Will and accordingly the legal heirs/successors of the late Anusuia Jhunjhunwalla decided to sell the property aforesaid and accordingly sold 0.24 acres of land of sub-plot No. 31/A in favour of plaintiff through registered deed of sale dated 25.07.1989 after receipt of the valuable consideration amount. The appellant/plaintiff acquired valid right, title and interest over the property purchased by her and also made construction and erected boundary wall over the same. The extent of the purchase by the plaintiff is 63 ft. wide in the Western side and 59 ft. wide in the Eastern side and likewise the length of the purchased area is 147 ft. long in the Southern side and 146 ft. 6 inches in the Northern side of the said plot. Subsequently, the property was purchased by Kapil Vastu Grih Nirman Samittee but Sushil Kumar Sinha and Ajit Kumar Sinha illegally and unauthorizedly sold under three registered deed of sale dated 23.05.1997 and the defendants claim to have purchased portion of plot No. 31 and 32 through the said registered deeds of sale. It was further case of the appellant/defendant that from the sale deed dated 23.05.1997 executed by Sushil Kumar Sinha it transpires that the vendor has sold 10 ft x 147 ft. road west to east to the Southern side of the plot encroaching upon 1 ft. x 147 ft. of the plaintiffs land as shown in the red wash of the map attached to plaint this area is dispute in question and in that a suit in question was instituted by the respondent/defendant. The said Grih Nirman Samittee had purchased only 9 ft x 147 ft. road and the said Sushil Kumar Sinha had absolutely no right to sell the plaintiffs land measuring 1 ft. x 147 ft. west to east on the Southern side of the plot and as such the defendants have absolutely no right to claim over the said 1 ft. x 147 ft. road and the said Sushil Kumar Sinha had absolutely no right to sell the plaintiffs land measuring 1 ft. x 147 ft. west to east on the Southern side of the plot and as such the defendants have absolutely no right to claim over the said 1 ft. x 147 ft. of land and the encroachment of the same has to be removed under the law. It was further pleaded that after purchase of the aforesaid land the defendants violated all the terms and understanding and the case of strong prima facie and balance of convenience made out by the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. The appellants/defendants appeared in the suit and filed their joint written statement in which a common ground had been taken that the suit is not maintainable and suit is barred by the law of limitation. It is also barred by the principles of Waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. The suit is bad for miss-joinder of unnecessary party. The defendant No.1 is the owner of portion of the property denoted as sub-plot no. B which is on the extreme east of plot no. 32 and is not adjacent to the plaintiff property. Likewise defendant Nos. 2 & 5 properties are not adjacent to plot no. 31/A. It was further pleaded by the defendants that unless transfer of the land and house in sub-plot no. 31/A in her favour is proved the question of the plaintiff having acquired valid title and interest over the suit property does not arise. It was admitted that 9’ x 148’ clear passage and 154 ft. long boundary wall on the South of Holding No. 2047/K-1 running from west to east as also the stripe of land on the Eastern side of the property in Holding No. 2047/K1 running from south to north containing the verandah and water tank was sold to Kapilvastu Sahakari Grih Nirman Samittee Ltd. by registered deed No. 8153 dated 26.09.1987. It was also admitted that 9’ x 148’ passage along with the 154 ft. long boundary wall on the extreme South plus the 6 ft. wide stripe of land running from the 9 ft. wide passage forwards the Northern end of plot no. 31 and containing a verandah and water tank were purchased by the said Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti for its exclusive use. The land and house in plot no. 32 Holding no. long boundary wall on the extreme South plus the 6 ft. wide stripe of land running from the 9 ft. wide passage forwards the Northern end of plot no. 31 and containing a verandah and water tank were purchased by the said Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti for its exclusive use. The land and house in plot no. 32 Holding no. 2047/L measuring 19 decimals too were sold by the owners to the said Grih Nirman Samiti through Deed No. 8152 dated 26.09.87. The said Sahakari Nirman Samiti had also purchased 3.5 decimals equivalent to 1700 sq. ft. of land in plot no. 31, marked as sub-plot no. 31/B which is adjacent south and east to the land in sub-plot no. 31/A and consists of the 9 ft. x 148 ft. clear passage with the Southern boundary wall and 6 ft. wide stripe of land containing the verandah and water tank on the Eastern side of the plaintiffs property. On the basis of above facts and pleadings of both the parties following issues have been framed by the trial Court:- (1) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (2) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? (3) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (4) Has the plaintiff acquired a valid right, title and interest over the land in suit by virtue of purchase through registered deed of sale dated 25.07.1989? (5) Have the defendants encroached upon the portion of the suit property belonging to the plaintiff? (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to any relief as claimed for? (7) To what relief or relief’s, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? 4. The respondents/plaintiffs examined six witnesses whereas appellants/defendants have examined altogether five witnesses in support their respective contentions. 5. The respondents/plaintiffs and appellants/defendants filed following documents which were exhibited. 6. The documents marked exhibits on behalf of the plaintiff are as follows:- Ext-1 to 1/c:- Municipal Rent Receipts Ext-2:- Power of Attorney Ext-3:- Sale deed with Map dated 25.07.1989. Ext-4:- Report of Asst. Engineer with Map dated 16.09.06 7. The documents marked exhibits on behalf of the defendants are as follows:- Ext-A:- Deed No. 8152 dated 26.09.87 Ext-A/1:- Deed No. 8153 dated 26.09.87 Ext- A/2 to A/7 :- Deed No. 2388, 2389, 2390 dated 24.02.88, 2333, 2331 dated 23.5.97, 2332 dated 23.5.97. 8. On the basis of above evidences the trial Court proceeded and decided the issue. The documents marked exhibits on behalf of the defendants are as follows:- Ext-A:- Deed No. 8152 dated 26.09.87 Ext-A/1:- Deed No. 8153 dated 26.09.87 Ext- A/2 to A/7 :- Deed No. 2388, 2389, 2390 dated 24.02.88, 2333, 2331 dated 23.5.97, 2332 dated 23.5.97. 8. On the basis of above evidences the trial Court proceeded and decided the issue. While deciding the issue No. 5, the trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.-3 of para nos. 3, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 24. He has also taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.-4 of para 5 and 19 and cross examination of the said witnesses were also considered. The evidence of P.W.-5 was taken into consideration of para nos. 1, 2 and 3. The evidence of P.W.-6 of para nos. 6 and 7. The evidence of D.W.1 of para 2. The evidence of D.W.-2 of para 4. The evidence of D.W. Nos., 4 and 5 came to the findings it is clear that they have purchased lands of plot nos. 32 and 32/A through deed Nos. 2333, 2331 and 2332 dated 23.05.1997 and plot no. 32/A is just adjacent towards western side to the land of the plaintiff which has been purchased by defendant no. 3. It has also come into evidence that plaintiff has purchased the plot no. 31/A. 9. The trial Court was further proceeded to examine the exhibited documents of the evidence and considered the sale deed of plaintiff as well as defendants. 10. On perusal of the sale deed of the plaintiff (Ext-3), the trial Court found that in the schedule of the property the purchased land by Kapilvastu Sahkari Samiti vide deed of sale dated 26.09.1987 (Ext-A/1) has been figured in it and excluded from the properties sold to the plaintiff. From perusal of Map of Ext-A/1 it transpires that road is 9 ft. wide in Southern side and thereafter there is brick built boundary wall . Thus, after 9 ft. road there is land of the plaintiff and as such the 1 ft. wide road as written in the sale deeds of the defendants are wrong and it should be only 9 ft. wide. The plaintiff land is 63 ft. wide in western side and 147 ft. long in southern side and as such 1ft. x 147 ft. in southern side has been encroached by the defendants. wide road as written in the sale deeds of the defendants are wrong and it should be only 9 ft. wide. The plaintiff land is 63 ft. wide in western side and 147 ft. long in southern side and as such 1ft. x 147 ft. in southern side has been encroached by the defendants. The lawyer for the plaintiff as well as the defendants have admitted the report of Assistant Engineer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation (Ext.-4) and on perusal of the said report with Map (Ext-4), it transpires that Engineer has also found encroachment towards southern side of the plaintiffs land i.e.8’ x 147’ encroachment in the west to east of this suit plot. 11. Discussing above all the issues the trial Court decreed the suit with contest against the defendants and came to the conclusion that defendants have encroached the lands of the plaintiff i.e. 8’’ x 147’ east to west and towards eastern side of suit plot 58’.10’’ x 6’.4”+ 8’.4’’= 431 S.E.T. and thus plaintiff is entitled to relief as well as other relief’s and accordingly the suit was decreed. 12. Aggrieved with this appellant preferred the appeal which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2008, which was decided by the learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi. By judgment dated 14.03.2016. The appellate court entered into discussions and looking into the exhibits of the documents and the evidences of the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs and defendants minutely which has been dealt with in the judgment of appeal and finally came into conclusion that there is no illegality in judgment passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, thereafter appellants have preferred this second appeal before this Court. 13. Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the defendants have purchased the land by the registered sale deed and registered sale deed has not been questioned and findings of the trial court and appellate court are not correct. She further draws the attention of this Court towards Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:- 34. Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the defendants have purchased the land by the registered sale deed and registered sale deed has not been questioned and findings of the trial court and appellate court are not correct. She further draws the attention of this Court towards Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:- 34. Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief. Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. 14. She further relied a judgment in the case of Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Mahboobunnissa Begum (SMT) and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 238 , which held as under:- 12. The State of Andhra Pradesh has filed objections to the findings of the trial Court. On behalf of the appellants and the State of Andhra Pradesh it was submitted that the trial Court could not have discarded the findings of the Court Commissioner. It was submitted that as per the orders of this Court, it was only this Court which could hear objections on the report of the Commissioner. We see no substance in this submission. This Court had directed the trial court to record findings. The trial court may have appointed a Commissioner to carry out survey but ultimately the findings had to be recorded by the trial Court. The report of the Commissioner could only be an aid to the trial Court in arriving at its findings. The trial court has allowed parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial court has complied with the directions of this Court. 15. On the above facts, she submits that there is substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and it is fit to be admitted. 16. The trial court has allowed parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial court has complied with the directions of this Court. 15. On the above facts, she submits that there is substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and it is fit to be admitted. 16. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, this court finds that the trial Court as well as the appellate court have taken into consideration, detail discussions of the evidences and exhibits and came to the above findings that even the case relates to measurement of certain encroachment. For that the trial Court has discussed the evidences adduced by the parties and both the fact finding courts come to the concurrent findings on the disputed question and this Court sitting under section 100 of the C.P.C is not inclined to enter into further examining the documents and the witnesses and in view of the well settled proposition of law and the facts relied by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the case of Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Mahboobunnissa Begum (SMT) and Others (Supra) is distinguishable with the facts of the present case and the trial Court had allowed the parties to complete the oral as well as documentary evidence and the trial Court and the appellate court had followed the procedure laid down under order Order XLI Rule 31 of the C.P.C. as the case relied by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is not applicable to the present case and this court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed.