JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2016 and 22.06.2016 respectively passed by the Principal District Judge, Dumka in Civil Appeal No. 04/2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2008 and 07.02.2008 respectively passed by the Sub-Judge-II, Dumka in Title Suit No. 147/1999. 2. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaring their right, title and interest of Schedule ‘A’ land property of J.B. No. 7 corresponding the current Settlement J.B. No. 4 of Mouza Jamua, No. 10, Circle Matihani, P.S. Saraiyahat which belongs jointly in the names of Gangu Manjhi, Kusahar Manjhi and Patwari Manjhi. The plaintiffs further prayed that cutting made in the current settlement parcha of the names of plaintiffs and Godo Manjhi which was prayed to be declared that said cuttings are illegal and regarding the names of defendant no. 1 is also null and void and illegal and for confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs. It was the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that they have given an genealogy table in para 2 of the plaint which is substance also denied by the defendants. The recorded tenant Bhuwan Manjhi, Mahadeo Manjhi, Sahdeo Manjhi S/o Patwari Manjhi and widow of Patwari Manjhi namely Bhagwatia Manjhian were shown in the genealogical table. Bhuwan Manjhi, Sahdeo Manjhi and Mahadeo Manjhi stand recorded in the khatiyan of J.B. No. 7 of Mr. Gantzer Settlement of mouza jamua and as because widow of the Bhagwatia Manjhian during Gantzer Settlement was not the heir so she was not recorded. Thus, three sons of Patwari Manjhi were joint in possession and died one after another last of all Bhuwan Manjhi died in the year 1935 leaving behind their mother Bhagwatia Manjhian, in state of jointness with the other co-sharers namely Gangu Manjhi and Kushar Manjhi. Gangu Manjhi has died represented by his grand son namely Govind Manjhi, Ghuran Manjhi S/o Jagdish Manjhi, Binu Manjhi S/o Musari Manjhi grand son of Gangu Manjhi and Kushar Manjhi died and was represented by his grant son Kali Manjhi S/o Godo Manjhi who is the plaintiff no. 4 out of three sons only Bhuwan Manjhi was married but he had no issue. 4 out of three sons only Bhuwan Manjhi was married but he had no issue. Mahadeo Manjhi and Sahdeo Manjhi had predeceased Bhuwan Manjhi who also died in the year 1935 leaving behind his widow and mother Bhagwatia Manjhian was widow left and deserted the house of the Bhuwan Manjhi and remarried elsewhere and never come to back. 3. After the death of two brothers, Bhuwan Manjhi had reunited with father of the plaintiffs and the father of the plaintiff no. 3 had performed the Mukhagni and shradh of Bhuwan Manjhi and on the death of Bhuwan Manjhi in the year 1935, the father of the plaintiffs and Ratan Manjhi being his next reversioners had taken possession of the Schedule ‘B’ land and began to possess them and maintain Most. Bhagwatia Manjhian. It is further stated that Ratan Manjhi had no son and he predeceased his brother Godo Manjhi, the father of the plaintiff no. 4 and in course of time Godo Manjhi and the plaintiff nos. 1, 2 and 3 had partitioned the schedule ‘A’ land among themselves and began separately cultivate and enjoy their respective share of the said lands, houses were also partitioned, old house fell and new house constructed by the father of the plaintiff no. 4 on plot no. 33 and in the old house was allotted to Ratan Manjhi where till his death he resided in the old house standing on plot no. 33 and after his death, his daughter used to reside in the said house which the plaintiffs do not claim. 4. Bhagwatia Manjhian had become 90 years old, since 1968 she lost her balance of mind and had become almost blind and hard of hearing. The husband of defendant no. 2 who was the daughter of Ratan Manjhi stealthy brought Most. Bhagwatia Manjhian to Dumka and fraudulently brought into existence a deed of adoption on 6.2.1968 falsely stating therein that the defendant no. 1 had been adopted by her on 3.2.1968. That there were u/s 107 Cr. The husband of defendant no. 2 who was the daughter of Ratan Manjhi stealthy brought Most. Bhagwatia Manjhian to Dumka and fraudulently brought into existence a deed of adoption on 6.2.1968 falsely stating therein that the defendant no. 1 had been adopted by her on 3.2.1968. That there were u/s 107 Cr. P.C. and a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. relating to schedule ‘A’ lands vide T.R. Case No. 118 of 1971 of the Court of Sri D. Sharma, Magistrate, Ist Class, Dumka which was decided in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 19.08.1971 upholding the possession of the plaintiffs over schedule ‘A’ lands and also held that the plaintiffs were in possession on 25.11.1970, the date of preliminary order and also on final adjudication dated 19.08.1971. It is very necessary to mention here that Title Suit No. 79 of 1968 which was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the defendant no. 1 had not been adopted by Bhagwatia Manjhian and was not her adopted son, but the same was dismissed and they also lost the appeal therefrom. But those decisions did not in any manner affected their possession in schedule ‘A’ lands which were declared in possession of the plaintiffs by order passed in Case u/s 145 Cr.P.C. which is still in force and in possession of the plaintiffs, in which case said Bhagwatia Manjhian as well as the present defendants were also party, they did not file any appeal or revision against the said final order passed u/s 145 Cr.P.C. nor they instituted any Title Suit nullifying the order passed u/s 145 Cr.P.C. and in the manner more than 36 years have elapsed till today the plaintiffs are in peaceful actual cultivating possession of the suit land the defendants have lost their claim of title against the plaintiffs by efflux of time, the c/c of judgment has been marked Exhibit (5). 5. 5. The plaintiffs alike their father have been coming in actual cultivating possession of the lands described in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint since 1935, as said Most Bhagwatia Manjhian did not inherit the suit land as the succession did not open in her favour on the death of her sons lastly the death of eldest son Bhuwan Manjhi who died in the year 1935 and during those days, mothers were not entitled to inherit the properties of her sons in 1935, she was only a maintenance holder and being maintained by the plaintiffs alike their fathers. 6. Therefore, during present settlement, the settlement authority have wrongly and illegally recorded the names of the defendants, hence the proper of peening through the names of plaintiffs in column 11 of current settlement parcha were sought to be declared as illegal. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed seven issues. 8. The appellant/plaintiffs have adduced 7 witnesses and the documents marked as exhibit 1 to exhibit 4. The respondents/defendants have adduced 3 witnesses and exhibits of the defendants were marked as exhibit ‘A’ to exhibit ‘E’. 9. The trial court has considered section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and came to the conclusion that section 14 is not attracted where female Hindu is in possession of property without any right of it. 10. Female Hindu has acquired some kind of title however restricted the nature of the interest may be. The words "has a full owner thereof and not a limited owner" as a given in the last portion of the sub-section 1 of the section 14 clearly suggests that legislature intended that the limited ownership of the Hindu female should be changed into full ownership. 11. Considering the evidence of the plaintiffs and the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the trial court came to the conclusion that Patwari Manjhi died leaving behind three sons and his widow whose names were Bhuwan Manjhi, Mahadeo Manjhi and Sahdeo manjhi and widow was Bhagwatia Manjhian and as because during gantzer’s settlement, the mother was not a heir, therefore, only the names of the Bhuwan Manjhi, Mahadeo Manjhi and Sahdeo were recoded so on the death of her three sons if she would inherit property then only the defendant no. 1 would claim exactly the same what Bhagwatia Manjhian would have inherited. 1 would claim exactly the same what Bhagwatia Manjhian would have inherited. Out of three brothers, the eldest brother Bhuwan Manjhi died in the year 1935 and Bhagwatia was alive but succession did not open in favour of 1935. So she was being the maintenance by ancestor of the appellants/plaintiffs being gotia but on the score of defendant said para no. 11 of the PWs. and as well as the respondent/defendants that Bhuwan Manjhi died after much 1956 or 1956-60 but all statement of PWs. that Bhuwan Manjhi died in the year 1935 but the evidence of the appellants/plaintiffs was not found to be reliable by the trial court as there is no documentary evidence of proof. While considering the application under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. and its rejoinder, the trial court came to the finding that the defendants/respondents at their convenience made different statements about the date of death of Bhuwan Manjhi whereas evidence of the defendants much reliance be given on the testimony. The trial court finds that the evidence of the witnesses of the defendants they were not consistent on the point of death of Bhuwan Manjhi. On the other hand, the appellants/plaintiffs all through 1968 in Title Suit of the adoption, the case under section 145 Cr.P.C. and before the proceeding of the settlement court have said that Bhuwan Manjhi died in the year 1935 leaving behind his mother Bhagwatia Manjhian so therefore under the law, she do not inherit the property and succession did not open in her favour, so defendants/respondents have not acquired title upon the suit land. The exhibit-5 has been adduced by the appellants/plaintiffs which is an order under section 145 Cr.P.C. which suggests that the possession of the second party over the disputed plot is declared and the properties of the first party are restricted to go to the disputed plots unless and until the second party is evicted. Exhibit-4 is the deposition under section 145 Cr.P.C. between both the parties regarding apprehension of the breach of peace and considering the exhibits of the defendants and the appellant/plaintiffs the trial court came to the finding that the admitted fact is that Bhagwatia mother of Bhuwan died in the year 1971 during pendency of the Cr.P.C. proceeding. Exhibit-4 is the deposition under section 145 Cr.P.C. between both the parties regarding apprehension of the breach of peace and considering the exhibits of the defendants and the appellant/plaintiffs the trial court came to the finding that the admitted fact is that Bhagwatia mother of Bhuwan died in the year 1971 during pendency of the Cr.P.C. proceeding. So, Bhagwatia has also succeeded and inherited the property of Bhuwan as a Hindu Woman’s Rights and Property Act, 1935 is purely not applicable in the case of mother. The Woman’s Right to Property Act recognizes the right of the widow and predeceased son’s widow etc. So, the mother is the heir since inception and Mullas Hindu Law Article 61 innumerated and named the persons who were present and recognized as the heir i.e. also father’s mother and father’s fathers mother. So on the death of Bhuwan mother Bhagwatia inherited the property left by her son Bhuwan not to distantly related agnates and while discussing the Article 61, Article 43 of the Mulla’s Hindu Law, the trial court decided the issue no. 3 and 5 in favour of the defendants and against the appellants/plaintiffs. While discussing section 14 (i) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the trial court came to the finding that in the present case Bhagwatia was in legal possession inherited from son depended into absolute and full ownership because she has died in the year 1971 to her adopted son defendant no. 1 and accordingly, issue nos. 4 and 6 went in favour of the defendants and not in possession of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the discussions, the trial court came to the finding that on discussion of the oral as well as the documentary evidences of legal interpretation and appreciation of the facts and evidences of the case, possession of Bhagwatia is to be held and any so called possession of the plaintiffs is not legal and law does not recommend the same. So, there is no question of decree of their alleged title and similarly does not arise any question of confirmation their possession which is not legal and Settlement Officer current survey rightly passed the order expunging their names from the column of possession. The Settlement Officer is empowered under section 12 of Regulation Act 3 of the year 1872 to record the rights of the raiyat, accordingly to defendant no. 1. The Settlement Officer is empowered under section 12 of Regulation Act 3 of the year 1872 to record the rights of the raiyat, accordingly to defendant no. 1. So, the case is not maintainable and the suit is barred by limitation which were answered against the appellants/plaintiffs and it was found that the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and accordingly, it was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 29.01.2008. 12. Aggrieved with this, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2008, which was decided by the Principal District Judge, Dumka by judgment dated 13.06.2016. The appellate court also entered into the genealogy and also considered the case of the parties in detail. The appellate court re-casted the issue at paragraph no. 5 of the judgment and proceeded to discuss the evidences of PWs. and DWs. as well as the exhibits on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants. 13. The appellate court considered Article 24 of the Mulla’s Hindu Law which runs as the Mitakshara recognizes two modes of devolution of property namely, survivorship and succession. The appellate court has also considered the exhibit-5 which is the order under section 145 Cr.P.C. which shows that the possession of the second party over the disputed plot is declared and properties of the first party are restricted to go to the disputed plots unless and until the second party is evicted. The appellate court came to the finding that now possession of the female never to be inflicted in a narrow sense and relying in the recent decisions reported in 1980 SC 198 and AIR 1996 869 with regard to possession of female as absolute and after discussing the entire evidences and exhibits, the appellate court also came to the finding that the appellants/plaintiffs have not been able to prove their case and further came to the conclusion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the learned court below dated 29.01.2008 and accordingly the judgment passed by the learned court below was confirmed and the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed with cost by the judgment dated 13.06.2016. 14. Aggrieved with this, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal before this Court. 15. Mr. 14. Aggrieved with this, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal before this Court. 15. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs argues that the appellate court has not framed separate issue which is mandatory under Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. He relied in the case of C. Venkata Swamy vs. H.N. Shivanna (D) by L.R. and Another, (2018) SCCR 305 and submits that in view of this judgment as the Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. was not followed by the appellate court, the Second Appeal is fit to be admitted on substantial question of law. 16. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs further argues that at the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the respondents are not entitled to be heard and he opposes the appearance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. He refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Devarasu vs. Veerasekaran and Another, (2015) 17 SCC 767 and submits that at this stage the respondents are need not to be heard by this Court. He further submits that merely on the ground of concurrent finding by the courts below, the S.A. cannot be dismissed. 17. He further submits that in view of Article 43, 61 and 62 of the Mulla’s Hindu Law which has not been considered by the appellate court and in that view of the matter, the S.A. is having substantial question of law and is fit to be admitted. 18. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs further relies in the case of Radha Rani Bhargava vs. Hanuman Prasad Bhargava (Deceased) and after him by his Legal Representatives and Others, AIR 1966 SC 216 and submits that in view of this judgment and considering the section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the S.A. is fit to be allowed. 19. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, this Court looking into the objection with regard to the appearance of the respondent no. 2 is not considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court have discussed the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary and the exhibits adduced on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants in detail. 2 is not considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court have discussed the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary and the exhibits adduced on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants in detail. The argument of Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs is with regard to Article 43, 61 and 62 of the Mulla’s Hindu Law is also not acceptable in particular as this Court looking into the judgment of the courts below found that they have discussed those Articles of Mulla’s Hindu Law in its right perspective. The judgment relied by Mr. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel in the case of Radha Rani Bhargava (supra) is not applicable in the present case while section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act clearly suggests that the legislature intended that limited ownership of the Hindu family should be changed into full ownership. In this case inheritance claimed by widows and not by mothers. As the Hindu Woman’s Right in Property Act came into force in the year 1937 so the claims in such case were entered. This decision also stand on similar footing on inheritance claimed by the step-mother and admittedly first wife of Erama Goda not the mother of Basana who died on 23.10.1936. 20. This Court finds that after the entire evidences have been discussed and the conclusion and findings are supported by the reasons and further points have also been framed by both the courts and thus, there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. and accordingly, the arguments of Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel is not accepted. This court further finds that two fact finding courts have come to a concurrent finding and there is no perversity in the judgment of the appellate court below. There is no substantial question of law involved in this case and, accordingly, Second Appeal No. 463 of 2016 stands dismissed.