JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, the learned vice-counsel. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.07.2016 and decree dated 23.07.2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No.2 of 2010 whereby the Title Appeal No.2 of 2010 has been dismissed and the judgment dated 24.11.2009 and decree dated 08.12.2009 passed in Title Suit No.06 of 2008 has been affirmed by the learned appellate court below. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted the suit for adjudication of his right, title and interest over the suit property under Khata No.216, Plot No.431, area 0.08 acres situated at Gumla P.S. and District Gumla which is fully described in schedule of the plaint and also to declare the decree of Title Suit No.47 of 93, Title Appeal No.4 of 96 and in Execution Case No.3 of 03 the delivery 16/11/06 are illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for the cost of the suit. 3. The appellant-plaintiff made out a case before the court below that defendant/respondent no.1-Kaniza Khatoon through her brother Ahmad Ansari (defendant/respondent no.2) filed eviction suit being Eviction Suit No.47/93 on 18.08.1993 on the basis of Mukhtarnama executed by defendant/respondent no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 in which it was pleaded that the said holding is in the share of Kaniza Khatoon (defendant no.1) and she has been shifted from Ranchi to Gumla and living with her brother Ahmad Ansari (defendant/respondent no.2) and thereafter on the ground of personal necessity filed eviction suit and the suit was decreed on 18.12.1995 and the defendant of that eviction suit who is the appellant-plaintiff of this case preferred an appeal in the court of learned District Judge, Gumla as Title Appeal No.4/96 in which an amendment petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff of that case/respondent of the present case for amendment in the schedule of the plaint whereas Khata No.216, Plot No.431 has been written in the schedule of the plaint in place of Khata No.107, Plot No.433 and the suit has been remanded back for re-writing judgment, filing written statement and evidence. 4. 4. It was the further case of the appellant/plaintiff that there was one title suit being Title Suit No.25 of 98 was instituted by one Suleman Sufi in the court of Sub-Judge, Gumla whereas this appellant/plaintiff was defendant no.2 and the defendant Kaniza Khatoon (respondent no.1) and her brother Ahmad Ansari (respondent no.2) was defendant no.4 substituted after the death of Hussain Ansari and in that case they have filed joint written statement in which they claimed that they were the absolute owner of the suit property, the subject matter in the eviction suit and the said suit was dismissed in default on 17.09.2007 and thereafter the decree holder filed the execution case being Execution Case No.3 of 2003 and on the basis of the said execution delivery of possession of the said has also been delivered and in that view of the matter still the present appellant/plaintiff is in possession of that property. The appellant/plaintiff further made out a case in the court below that the land in question is under the Revisional Survey Khata No.216, Plot No.431, area 0.08 Decimal, recorded in the name of Mst. Faguni, wife of Kolha Safi and that land was purchased by Kolha Safi in the name of his wife. In the record of right, the name of Mst. Faguni was mentioned. Mst. Faguni has transferred the land in question in the year 1940 in the name of Nizam Khalifa son of Md. Safruddin on consideration of amount of Rs.100/- only and the appellant is in possession over the land in question, since 1940 in assertion of possession of their father by virtue of said transfer and on the basis of that transfer after vesting of the zamindari, land become his raiyati land in view of the provision contained under Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950. It was the further case of the appellant that the said eviction suit has been filed without the knowledge and consent of Kaniza Khatoon under wrong submission of Ahmad Ansari, who claimed that he filed the suit on the basis of Mukhtarnama. In fact, there was no Mukhtarnama available on record and there is no khata number, plot number was shown. Further, after remand the plaintiff/appellant who was defendant in that eviction suit filed an additional written statement and also adduced his evidence. In fact, there was no Mukhtarnama available on record and there is no khata number, plot number was shown. Further, after remand the plaintiff/appellant who was defendant in that eviction suit filed an additional written statement and also adduced his evidence. Whereas the plaintiff of that eviction suit/respondent of this case had filed sale deed being Sale Deed No.358/419 dated 28.12.36, sale deed No.193 dated 04.03.36 executed by Mst. Faguni in favour of Zahur. It was the further case of the appellant that the certified copy of sale deed No.1524 dated 28.12.45 executed by Md. Farukh to Md. Abdul Latif of Khata No.216, plot No.431 and both the sale deeds were illegal and never came into effect even Mst. Faguni had no right to execute the sale deed because the land has already been sold to plaintiff’s father and on the basis of that the purchasers have not acquired any right, title and interest in the property. The appellant filed petition before the Circle Officer, Gumla vide Misc. Case No.22/97-98 recommended the name of plaintiff for mutation and sent entire record in the Court of Additional Collector, Gumla and the said record has been transferred to the D.C., Gumla and said has been disposed off as there is civil suit pending before the Civil Court. The appellant further make out a case that on the perusal of the plaint of Eviction Suit No.47 of 93 and written statement of the said defendant no.4, it appears that the it came out that the defendant’s brother had filed said eviction suit on false ground without any authority. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the said eviction suit and decree of Title Appeal and also delivery of possession dated 16.11.2006 is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff/appellant and the plaintiff/appellant sought the reliefs that on adjudication of plaintiff, right, title and interest over the suit property as averted in the plaint, declared the decree passed in T.S. No.47/93 and T.A. No. 4/96 and in execution case No.03/03 the delivery of possession given on 16.11.2006 illegal and not binding upon the appellant/plaintiff. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit. The trial court after issuing summons and called the defendants to appear. The defendant nos.1 and 2 did not appear, however, the defendant no.3 appeared but did not file any written statement. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit. The trial court after issuing summons and called the defendants to appear. The defendant nos.1 and 2 did not appear, however, the defendant no.3 appeared but did not file any written statement. The appellant/ plaintiff examined six witnesses to prove his case. He also filed the documents which were marked as Ext.1 to Ext.19. The trial court entered into the lis and discussed the evidence of the witnesses and also considered the exhibits which were exhibited in the case and came to the finding that the appellant is not in possession over the suit land and the suit is barred by law of limitation and section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act and the plaintiff has also not got valid cause of action to sue the suit and the suit is not maintainable in the present form. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as claimed in the suit and accordingly the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 6 of 2008 dated 24.11.2009, the appellant preferred Title Appeal No.2 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge, Gumla. The appellate court while considering the grounds of the appeal formulated the points to decide the appeal. The appellate court was also entered into the discussions of the witnesses and the documents and also discussed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. The appellate court also came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff cannot blow hot and cold at the same time by claiming his right over the property on the basis of oral sale and the possession by adverse possession and on the threadbare discussion of the evidences came to the finding that the appellant does not make out a case for interference in the judgment passed in the suit and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Gumla was confirmed. Aggrieved with the judgment passed in the appeal, the appellant preferred this Second Appeal. 6. Mr. S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the appellate court has not followed the procedure prescribed under Order-XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. He further argues that the additional evidences which were relied by the appellant were not at all discussed by the appellate court. 6. Mr. S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the appellate court has not followed the procedure prescribed under Order-XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. He further argues that the additional evidences which were relied by the appellant were not at all discussed by the appellate court. He further argues that there is perversity in the judgment of the appeal and therefore the Second Appeal is having substantial question of law. He further argues that so far as adverse possession is concerned, has not been properly dealt by the appellate court and in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court one can claim the possession on the ground of adverse possession. On these grounds, Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant argues that this is a fit case to be admitted on the ground of substantial question of law. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court have entered into the threadbare discussions on the evidences and the documents and both the fact finding courts have come to the concurrent conclusion and dismissed the case of the appellant. The appellate court after considering the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the finding that oral evidence cannot go over the documentary evidence. The appellate court also came to the finding that in view of the well-settled proposition of law the point of adverse possession is also not in favour of the appellant. So far as the argument of Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to adverse possession is concerned, this Court finds that this issue is no more res-integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Roop Singh (Dead) through LRs. vs. Ram Singh (Dead) through LRs.” reported in (2000) 3 SCC 708 has said that the plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the plea of right to possession on the basis of part performance of contract. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that permissive possession for long does not convert into an adverse possession. Plea of adverse possession and retaining possession by operation of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act are inconsistent with each other. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that permissive possession for long does not convert into an adverse possession. Plea of adverse possession and retaining possession by operation of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act are inconsistent with each other. This Court is conscious of the fact that this Court is sitting under Section 100 of the C.P.C. will not enter into the discussions and the evidences adduced by the parties. This Court further finds that this is the second round of litigation with regard to the property in question. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and accordingly, S.A. No.545 of 2016 stands dismissed.