JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The appellant has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment dated 26.05.2016 and decree dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.81 of 2008 whereby the appeal was dismissed and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2008 and 19.06.2008, respectively passed in Title Suit No.10 of 1995 passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge 5th, Dhanbad. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the land in Plot No.161 was recorded as Gair Abad Malik land under Khata No.1 of Mouza Gorga within P.S.Govindpur and Loknath Chandra of Nirsa was the tenure holder of Mouza Gorga. Gouri Manjhiain who was the mother of the plaintiffs, was the occupancy raiyat of village Gorga and thereafter she requested tenure holder for settlement of the 8 Bighas of land in plot no.161 for agricultural purpose. The ex-landlord namely Loknath Chandra settled 8 bighas of land to Gouri Mahatain in Bengali Calendar 1359 equivalent to 1952 by giving a settlement receipt of annual rent of Rs.8/- excluding cess with specific boundaries. Since the deed of settlement, Gouri Mahatain came in peaceful possession of the settled land and she reclaimed the land into Gora land and also constructed her residential house over a portion of land and rest of the land was being used for growing Rabi and other crops. It was further their case that their mother Gouri Mahatain who paid rent to the ex-landlord since the date of vesting of intermediary right and after vesting, she had been paying rent to the State of Bihar under Thoka No.43 of Mouza Gorga. It is further their case that Gouri Mahatain transferred the 5 bighas of land out of her settled 8 Bighas of land to different persons namely, Nakul Mahato, Tilak Mahato, Tipni Mahatain, Khelu Mahato and Chhatu Mahato. Thus, she was left with 3 bighas of land in plot no.161 which was possessed by her mother Gouri Mahatain till her death. Gouri Mahatain died leaving behind the plaintiff as sons who jointly inherited and came in possession of 3 bighas of land more fully described in schedule-A of the plaint and began to possess the same peacefully. Thus, she was left with 3 bighas of land in plot no.161 which was possessed by her mother Gouri Mahatain till her death. Gouri Mahatain died leaving behind the plaintiff as sons who jointly inherited and came in possession of 3 bighas of land more fully described in schedule-A of the plaint and began to possess the same peacefully. It is further their case that during the recent revisional survey of the land in plot no.161 has been sub-divided into different plots and the lands mentioned in schedule-A is recorded in the name of Gouri Mahatain. But at the time of publication of final Khatian the lands were wrongly recorded in the name of State of Bihar whereas the plaintiffs are peacefully possessing over the entire land mentioned in schedule-A of the plaint. It is further their case that out of schedule-A a portion of land has been re-numbered as Plot no.734, area 19 dec. which fully described in schedule-B of the plaint and there are several Jharis and Bumboos in this land. It is further their case that the defendants having no right, title interest or possession over any portion of schedule-A land, but they are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the land mentioned in schedule-B. It is further their case that the defendants tried to get their names entered in the survey recently undertaken and for that they filed petition u/s 89 of the CNT Act which was rejected by Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, and the defendants being unsuccessful in their attempt to grab the land of the plaintiffs mentioned in schedule-B, they have stacked building materials by the side of schedule-B land in order to construct the house over the same. The defendants have purchased some land by the side of the schedule-B land and hence, they are adamant to encroach upon the land of the plaintiffs mentioned in the schedule-B of the plaint and if the defendants are not restrained by the order of injunction the nature and character of the schedule-B land shall be changed and plaintiffs shall be put to irreparable loss. It is further their case that the plaintiffs are rightful owner of the land mentioned in schedule-B of the plaint and they are in continuous possession over the same whereas the defendants have no right, title, interest and possession and wants to dispossess the plaintiff from this land by force and constructing the house on the plot in question. The claim of the defendants casts a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs and so the plaintiffs filed the suit as per their aforesaid cause of action which arose on 17.03.1995, and on subsequent dates. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the appellant/plaintiff prayed, (a) for a decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff against the defendants for declaration of the raiyati title of the plaintiffs over the land mentioned in schedule-B, (b) for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the land mentioned in schedule-B, (c) for cost of the suit and (d) for any other or further relief or reliefs. The above suit was instituted by the appellant/plaintiff. 5. On summons, the defendants/respondents appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendants/respondents was that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. The plaintiffs have got no valid cause of action and suit is undervalued and suit is bad for non-joiner of proper necessary parties and the descendants of Loknath Chandra is necessary party and the suit is barred by Specific Relief Act. The defendants had denied the statement made in para-1 of the plaint. They have also denied that Gouri Manjhian was never the occupancy raiyat and the story adopted by the plaintiffs that she requested the tenure holder/landlord of Gorga for settlement of 8 bighas of land of plot no.161 for agricultural purpose is purely invented by the plaintiff with a view to colour this imaginary claim. It has further come into picture that it is false that Loknath Chanda settled 8 bighas of land to the Gouri Mahatain on 1.3.59 Bengal Calendar equivalent to 1952. They have denied that the plaintiffs/appellant or their mother never came in possession of the so-called settled land and making construction over the same are of bogus, invented and being used for growing rabi crops are purely cock and bull story. They have denied that the plaintiffs/appellant or their mother never came in possession of the so-called settled land and making construction over the same are of bogus, invented and being used for growing rabi crops are purely cock and bull story. They have denied that Gouri Mahatain never paid any rent to the ex-landlord as the plaintiffs did not furnish any related documents. Gouri Mahatain never transferred 5 bighas of land to Nakul Mahato, Tilak Mahato, Tupri Mahatain and others because Gouri Mahatain had not vested any title and she cannot execute any instrument. It was also denied that the Gouri Mahatain possessed the 3 bighas of land till her death. Gouri Mahatain died much prior to 1950 left no property at all and the appellant/plaintiff only inherited the property of their father not of Gouri Mahatain as she left no property at all. They also denied that in Revisional Survey Settlement operation the land had been recorded in the name of State of Bihar of Plot No.161 by reason of Gair Abad land and although the appellant/plaintiff got managed to have record part of the land in the name of Gouri Mahatain is fabricated and the same has been back door device of the appellant/plaintiff and Gouri Mahatain had no title and possession over the suit land. It was also denied that original Plot No.161 had been fabricated and the Plot No.734 is matter of record duly divided by the survey authority in course of survey operation is true. Since the land has been recorded as Gair Abad land in the survey record by giving reason of vesting the plot no.161 to the State of Bihar. It was denied the statement made in paras-10 and 11 of the plaint and stated that the defendants have got their own residential house on the suit land forming part of plot no.161 as the said plot is about 20 bighas where the answering defendants are in possession up to 2.30 acres of land consisting the houses, khalihan, angan covered by definite boundaries on all sides. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiffs that the schedule of the plaint is vague and defective but the same does not disclose about area of the existing physical features and the appellant/plaintiffs do not possess any authentic document in support of their possession and therefore the plaintiff’s case is fit to be dismissed. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiffs that the schedule of the plaint is vague and defective but the same does not disclose about area of the existing physical features and the appellant/plaintiffs do not possess any authentic document in support of their possession and therefore the plaintiff’s case is fit to be dismissed. It was the further case of the defendants that the suit is barred by the CNT Act as the proceeding before the Settlement Officer is not concluded and the plaintiffs if at all aggrieved by the decision of the Revenue Settlement Officer in that case proviso has been provided for revision/review/appeal before the Revenue Officer, but the plaintiffs did not choose the right forum and thus the present suit premature liable to be dismissed. It was stated that the Revisional Survey Authority duly accepted the ownership and possession of the defendants and on the other land the plaintiffs had no right, title or possession over any part of the schedule B land. They have denied the plaintiffs claim to the effect that defendants attempting to grab the schedule B land or they ever stacked any building material by the side of the schedule B land. It was further pleaded that whatever construction existing over the suit land is very old for about forty years to the knowledge of all the persons of that locality and there is no occasion of any encroachment of schedule B land. The defendants are the rightful owner of the schedule B land for more than forty years and for acquiring valid title and interest to the knowledge of all including the plaintiffs have no cause of action arose on and from 17.03.1995 or any date subsequent thereto. It was further pleaded that the suit land is undervalued. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the trial court entered into the lis and has formulated eight issues to decide the prayer made in the suit. The trial court while deciding issue nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 came to the finding that no document has been produced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiffs to prove their right, title and interest over the suit land. The rest of the issues also considered by the trial court and the suit was dismissed on 11.06.2008. The trial court while deciding issue nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 came to the finding that no document has been produced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiffs to prove their right, title and interest over the suit land. The rest of the issues also considered by the trial court and the suit was dismissed on 11.06.2008. Aggrieved with this, the appellant herein has filed appeal which was numbered as Title Appeal No.81 of 2008 which was decided by the District Judge-II, Dhanbad vide judgment dated 26.05.2016. The appellate court has also entered into the lis and has discussed the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his case and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 26.05.2016. Aggrieved with the appeal, the appellant has filed this Second Appeal. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.-2 is the certified copy of Khatiyan wherein the name of the mother of the appellant/plaintiff is there and that Ext.-2 has not been considered by the trial court as well as the appellate court and in that view of the matter, the Second Appeal is fit to be admitted on substantial question of law. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court, this Court finds that the appellate court has considered the evidence of P.W.3 and the P.W.4 who is himself the plaintiff who has clearly stated that the mother of the plaintiff has got the land by registered Hukumnama, but the plaintiff has not brought any registered document of Hukumnama in evidence. So the plaintiff has failed to prove his basis of claim. Admittedly, mutation order does not create any right, title and rent receipt does not create any right, title and the mutation order Ext.-A also does not create any right and title in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. So the plaintiff/appellant has not brought the basis of his claim in the evidence i.e. registered Hukumnama in his favour alleged to be executed in favour of their mother. So here in this case the appellant/plaintiff claims that her mother got the suit land by registered Hukumnama. So the plaintiff/appellant has not brought the basis of his claim in the evidence i.e. registered Hukumnama in his favour alleged to be executed in favour of their mother. So here in this case the appellant/plaintiff claims that her mother got the suit land by registered Hukumnama. According to Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act appellant/plaintiff only proved his claim of title by bringing the registered Hukumnama and not by the oral evidence. Thus, appellant/plaintiff has not brought any document of title regarding the suit land. It transpires that the appellate court and trial court have considered all the exhibits and came to that finding. This Court sitting in the second appeal is not inclined to further discuss the evidence or the documents as the two facts finding courts have come to concurrent finding, there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, and accordingly, this second appeal [S.A. No.359 of 2016] is dismissed.