JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. S. N. Das, counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, counsel appearing for the private respondents. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent no. 3. 4. The original appeal was filed by Parmeshwar Manjhi who has been substituted by the present appellant during the pendency of this case being his son. 5. This appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 27.11.2004 ( decree signed on 06.12.2004) passed by SubJudge 5 th, at Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 38 of 2000 whereby the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. 6. A title suit was filed before the learned court below by the plaintiff for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property being at Schedule-A to the plaint i.e. land situated at Mouza Hirapur, Mouza No. 7, Khata No. 10, Plot No. 1882, P.S. and District Dhanbad measuring an area of 1.14 acre. 7. From the perusal of the plaint of the title suit, it appears that the plaintiff''s case was that the suit property originally belonged to and was possessed by one Khare Majhi and at the time of Cadastral Survey, the suit land was stony land full of big jungle trees which was neither fit for cultivation nor habitable. Accordingly, Khare Majhi considering the nature of land abandoned the suit land. The grand father of the plaintiff namely Khakha Manjhi, in the year 1927 took physical possession of the property and made it cultivable by cutting earth and trees and started living on the said land alongwith his family members by constructing a house. He also started producing certain agricultural produce and further, he also planted certain trees. 8. The further case of the plaintiff is that as the grand father of the plaintiff Khakha Manjhi was in physical possession of the suit property, said Khare Majhi sold another plot of land bearing Plot No. 1880 under Khata No. 10 of the same Mouza measuring 1.47 acres vide registered deed of sale no. 3505 dated 05.09.1928. The plaintiff claimed adverse possession over the suit property i.e. relating to Plot No. 1882. While in possession, the grand-father of the plaintiff expired in the year 1942 leaving behind his only son and legal heir namely, Suku Majhi who was also known as Thotha Majhi. 3505 dated 05.09.1928. The plaintiff claimed adverse possession over the suit property i.e. relating to Plot No. 1882. While in possession, the grand-father of the plaintiff expired in the year 1942 leaving behind his only son and legal heir namely, Suku Majhi who was also known as Thotha Majhi. Said Suku Majhi alias Thotha Majhi constructed more Kachha houses and remained in physical possession of the land adversely to the knowledge of the recorded tenant namely, Khare Majhi and his successors and legal heirs. Said Suku Majhi alias Thotha Majhi also expired sometimes in the year 1974 leaving behind the original plaintiff. 9. The specific case of the original plaintiff was that subsequently the plaintiff constructed 6 Pukka rooms with Veranda plus 5 Khapraposh houses and inducted several monthly tenants, who were paying rent to the plaintiff. His further case was that the said houses were assessed as holding nos. 8 and 10 under Ward No. 2 of Dhanbad Municipality in the name of the original plaintiff and since 1979, the plaintiff was paying the municipality holding tax to Dhanbad Municipality and prior to that, it was assessed in the name of his father i.e. Suku Majhi as Holding No. 4 in the year 1964. Further, the plaintiff has been making payment of the electricity bill for the said holdings. 10. It has also been mentioned in the plaint that the original plaintiff had filed one title suit in connection with the said property being Title Suit No. 105 of 1996 in the court of SubJudge-I, Dhanbad which was transferred to Sub-Judge-II, Dhanbad. Before Sub-Judge-II, the original plaintiff filed a petition for withdrawal of the suit as Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was not impleaded as a party as per the amended provisions of Order I Rule 3 C.P.C. as applicable in Bihar and necessary permission was accorded by the learned Sub-JudgeII, Dhanbad for filing a fresh suit. This was the cause of action to file the suit. 11. In connection with another cause of action, the plaintiff has stated that on 30.05.1999, some unknown persons had tried to enter into the house of the original plaintiff and denied the right, title and interest of the original plaintiff, which gave a cause of action to file the suit. 12. The notices were issued and the defendants filed their written-statement except defendant no. 12. The notices were issued and the defendants filed their written-statement except defendant no. 3, who did not file any written statement and the proceedings were taken ex-parte against the defendant no. 3 vide order dated 11.07.2001 passed by the learned trial court. 13. The specific case of the defendant nos. 1 and 2, as per the written statement, was that the suit itself was not maintainable and there was no cause of action to file the suit. The defendant pleaded that admittedly the recorded tenant was Khare Majhi and further said Khare Manjhi remained in possession of the suit land and he continued to pay rent to the ex-landlord till his death. The location of the Plot No. 1882 was also disputed in the written statement. They also denied the statement of the original plaintiff that the suit land was not fit for cultivation and, rather, said that the suit land was Gora land and fit for cultivation. They also denied the assertion of the original plaintiff that Khare Majhi abandoned the land. They also stated that even the current rent was being paid by the defendants being the descendants of Late Khare Majhi. The defendants denied the assertion of the plaintiff that the grand-father of the original plaintiff entered into possession of the suit property in the year 1927 and also denied the construction of the house by the ancestor of the original plaintiff. 14. So far as the sale-deed in connection with another plot being Plot No. 1880 is concerned, the defendants admitted that Khare Majhi had executed the sale-deed, but asserted that no consideration money was paid and the defendants are still in possession of Plot No. 1880. The defendants clearly denied the right, title, interest and possession of the original plaintiff in connection with the suit property being Plot No. 1882 except to the extent that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in one of the houses of the defendants in the year 1980 and the defendants denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the said house as an absolute owner of the said property. The cause of action, as asserted by the original plaintiff, was also denied by the defendants. 15. The learned trial court framed the following issues: "(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is the suit barred by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? The cause of action, as asserted by the original plaintiff, was also denied by the defendants. 15. The learned trial court framed the following issues: "(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is the suit barred by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? (iii) Is the suit barred under the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act? (iv) Is the suit barred by the principles of specific relief act? (v) Has the plaintiff got right, title and interest over the suit land? (vi) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the present suit? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled to?" 16. The plaintiff has examined altogether five witnesses i.e. Suraj Mahato- P.W.-1, Jatan Mahato- P.W.-2, Sushil Ram Mahato- P.W.-3, Chandra Mohan Prasad - P.W.-4 and Parmeswar Majhi- P.W.-5. The plaintiff filed six receipts of Dhanbad Municipality as Exhibit 1 to 1/5, assessment by Dhanbad Municipality as Exhibit 2 and signature of Parmeswar Majhi on notice as Exhibit- 3. 17. So far as the defendants are concerned, they have examined altogether five witnesses; Hiralal Mahato D.W.-1, Biram Marandi- D.W.-2, Bhim Chandra Mahato- D.W.-3, Gangaswar Mahato- D.W.-4 and Rameswar Mahato- D.W.-5. The defendants filed two rent receipts which were marked as Exhibit A and A/1. 18. Counsel for the appellant, while advancing his argument has submitted that the main issue involved in the case was issue no. 5 i.e. whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land. He submits that from the perusal of the evidences as adduced by the parties, it appears that there is no doubt that the plaintiff was in possession of a portion of the property and he was living on the said property and accordingly, the adverse possession of the plaintiff ought to have been acknowledged and decided by the learned trial court in his favour. 19. During the course of argument, the counsel for the appellant could not dispute that admittedly as per the plaint, the property was recorded in the name of Khare Majhi and the defendants were the descendants of Khare Majhi. 20. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the plaintiff had claimed right, title and interest over the suit property i.e. plot no. 20. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the plaintiff had claimed right, title and interest over the suit property i.e. plot no. 1882 although as per the plaint itself, the property stood recorded in the name of Khare Manjhi, who was the ancestor of the defendants. He further submits that the defendants had produced the rent receipts which were marked as Exhibit A and A/1 and were dated 05.06.2003 and 08.08.1990, which included the suit property and accordingly, not only the right, title and interest, but also possession of the ancestor of the defendants was acknowledged by the State. He further submits that the original plaintiff had no cause of action to file a suit and accordingly, the title suit has been rightly dismissed. 21. On the basis of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the main issue for determination is as to whether the original plaintiff has any right, title and interest over the suit land and as to whether the original plaintiff had got any valid cause of action to file the suit which was relating to issue nos. 5 and 6, as framed by the learned Trial Court. 22. From the perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the original plaintiff himself had deposed as P.W.-5 and from the evidence of P.W.-5, it is apparent that he himself has not stated anything that the suit land was ever abandoned by the recorded tenant and he has simply stated that his grandfather was in possession of the suit property since prior to 35 years by constructing house. This Court further finds that the original plaintiff, has not supported his case fully as narrated in the plaint. So far as P.W.-2 is concerned, He has stated that Thotha Manjhi had removed jungles over the suit property although as per the plaint it was the grand father of the original plaintiff i.e. Khakha Majhi who had made the suit land cultivable. Thus, P.W.-2 has not supported the case of the original plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint. 23. Further, this Court finds that admittedly none of the socalled tenants had turned up to depose in favour of the original plaintiff. Thus, P.W.-2 has not supported the case of the original plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint. 23. Further, this Court finds that admittedly none of the socalled tenants had turned up to depose in favour of the original plaintiff. This Court finds that in the various receipts relating to Dhanbad Municipality there is nothing to indicate as to how the rent receipts as produced by the original plaintiff, were relating to the suit property, rather, it is the defendants who produced the rent receipts issued by the State which were dated 05.06.2003 and 08.08.1990 and marked as Exhibit A and A/1, which clearly establishes that the rent was paid by the defendants to the State and the rent receipts were in possession of the defendants. 24. From the perusal of the entire evidence, it is apparent that the plaintiff has not filed any document in connection with the suit property and further, the oral evidences adduced on behalf of the original plaintiff including the plaintiff himself, have not supported the case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint. Rather the evidence of the plaintiff is contrary to the plaint and is self-demolishing. This Court finds that considering all these aspects of the matter, particularly the contradiction in the evidence of the plaintiff vis- -vis averments made in the plaint, the learned Trial Court clearly held that the plaintiff failed to prove and establish his title over the property. 25. So far as the point regarding possession of a portion of the suit land by the original plaintiff as admitted by the defendant, though claiming him to be a tenant in connection with the property is concerned, the same is not sufficient to get a declaration of title over the suit property. 26. This Court further finds that so far as other issue in connection with cause of action which was framed as issue no. 6 is concerned, it was the specific case of the original plaintiff that the he had filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 105 of 1996, which was subsequently withdrawn by the original plaintiff, Admittedly, the original plaintiff had not accepted the order of withdrawal and the original plaintiff asserted that necessary permission for filing a fresh suit was accorded by the learned Sub-Judge while disposing off the earlier title suit i.e. Title Suit No. 105 of 1996. However, from the records of this case it appears that the said order was never exhibited by the plaintiff before the learned court below. Accordingly, the learned trial court not only held that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the case, but also held that the suit itself was not maintainable. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of the learned trial court. 27. It is relevant to note that so far as issue nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) as framed by the learned Trial Court are concerned, the learned Court below found that neither there was any arguments were advanced on these issues nor any evidences were led and accordingly, did not record any finding on these issues. Even before this Court the counsel for the appellant has not raised these issues. 28. This Court finds that the point for determination in connection with right, title and interest over the property involved in this case has been rightly decided by the learned Trial Court. Upon perusal of the evidences which were adduced by the original plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title over the property. 29. From the perusal of the records, this Court finds that a petition being I.A. No. 3032 of 2008 has been filed by the appellant being an application under Order XLI Rule 27 for adducing additional evidence in this case by stating that registered sale deed no. 3505 dated 05.08.1928 relating to plot no. 1880 under Khata No. 10 area 1.47 acres purchased by Khakha Manjhi is already on record but was not marked as exhibit by the learned trial court. This Court finds that no argument has been advanced by the petitioner on I.A. No. 3032 of 2008. However, vide order dated 21.10.2008 this Court had observed that I.A. No. 3032 of 2008 will be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal. Accordingly this Court is considering this interlocutory application. This Court is of the considered view that Sale deed No. 3505 dated 05.09.1928, as per the case of the plaintiff himself, was in relation to plot no. 1880 which is not the plot number of the suit property. The suit property is relating to plot no. 1882. Accordingly this Court is considering this interlocutory application. This Court is of the considered view that Sale deed No. 3505 dated 05.09.1928, as per the case of the plaintiff himself, was in relation to plot no. 1880 which is not the plot number of the suit property. The suit property is relating to plot no. 1882. In such circumstances, this Court finds that no useful purpose will be served by allowing this I.A. No. 3032 of 2008. This Court also finds that none of the witnesses of the plaintiff has even whispered a word in their deposition in connection with the aforesaid sale deed dated 05.09.1928. 30. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed as not pressed. 31. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this First Appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed.