JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rohitashya Roy, assisted by Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned S.C. (Mines)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment dated 22.05.2017 and decree dated 27.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-XIII, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 48 of 2015, whereby, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 27.08.2015 and decree dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 58 of 1998 has been affirmed. 3. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the land being R.S. Plot No. 1091, within R.S. Khata No. 464 corresponding to present survey plot no. 1481 Khata no. 446 and portion of Plot no. 1664, Khata No. 445 of Mouza Kitadih, P.S. Parsudih, Thana no. 1167, District-East Singhbhum containing of one pucca room and several temples i.e. Durga Mandir, Pahari Maa Mandir, Hanuman Mandir, Shiv Mandir, Ganesh Mandir, one Dharmasala, water taps with tankers and a flower garden was recorded in the name of Anabad Malik i.e. ex-landlord, the tenure holder of the estate. The original plaintiff approached the said ex-landlord, who settled a piece and parcel of land measuring more or less 3 bighas out of the total land of said R.S. Plot No. 1091 by way of Dol Settlement in the year 1938 and thereafter, she came in actual possession over the said land on payment of regular rent and other charges and she was used to obtain regular receipt of the same in her name from the ex-landlord. Thereafter, she constructed several house structure over the suit land including various temples and installed the deities of various God and Goddess, such as Goddess Kali, Pahari Maa, Mahadeo Mandir Hanuman Mandir etc. The plaintiff was performing all acts of her possession over the same and inducted tenants thereon peacefully well within the knowledge of all including the defendants. Thereafter, she constructed several house structure over the suit land including various temples and installed the deities of various God and Goddess, such as Goddess Kali, Pahari Maa, Mahadeo Mandir Hanuman Mandir etc. The plaintiff was performing all acts of her possession over the same and inducted tenants thereon peacefully well within the knowledge of all including the defendants. It was further case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit land wrongly recorded in the name of Anabad Sarbasadharan and State of Bihar in the present survey settlement operation of 1964 and taking advantage of said wrong entry the defendants, who claimed themselves as the social worker of the general public of the locality with the association of various anti-social element of the locality are trying to occupy the premises forcibly with an intention to grab the suit property after evicting the plaintiff there from as well as they are also creating obstruction in the peaceful worship of deities over the suit property. The plaintiff being absolute owner of the suit property objected the said act of the defendants and thus cloud has been casted over the peaceful right, title,interest and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property. It was further averred that on 10.05.98, the defendants with the association of the Gunda element wanted to erect some structure over the suit property in order to occupy the same illegally and to grab the property by using their forces without taking recourse of law, but due to timely intervention of the appellant/plaintiff they could not succeed in their attempt and ultimately they left the place after giving threatening that they would come again with more men and power to occupy the suit property on the basis of entry made in the record of rights finally published in the year 1964 in respect to the suit land. It was also pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff for the first time on 10.05.98 came to learn regarding the said wrong entry made in record of rights. It was also averred in the suit that the appellant/plaintiff sent notice under Section 80 C.P.C dated 12.05.98 under U.P.C. to the defendant requesting them not to interfere with the right, title, interest and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property. It was also averred in the suit that the appellant/plaintiff sent notice under Section 80 C.P.C dated 12.05.98 under U.P.C. to the defendant requesting them not to interfere with the right, title, interest and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property. It was also averred that the record of right finally published in the year 1964 in respect to the suit land is wrong, illegal and erroneous and the same has not affected the right, title, interest and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit land. The appellant/plaintiff having been acquired absolute right over the suit property since the time of its settlement by previous landlord and as such, the appellant/plaintiff in actual physical possession by way of adverse possession thereof without any interference from any corner whatsoever. 4. Defendant no.1 contested the suit. Rest of the defendants did not appear in the trial court and the case got fixed ex-parte hearing against other defendants vide order dated 25.08.2008. It was averred in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable and the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and the suit is barred by limitation and hit by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and also bad for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C and non-joinder of necessary party. The State did not admit the claim of the appellant/plaintiff and it was averred on their behalf that the suit land never settled to the original plaintiff and she never possessed the same as well as she had not made any construction over the same and the alleged rent receipt are bogus and manufactured. It was specifically averred that the suit land belong to the ex-landlord and after implementation of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the same vested to the State and the suit land being in possession of the State stood recorded in their name in survey settlement. The appellant/plaintiff has not acquired any manner of right or interest in the suit land either by adverse possession or in any manner and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial court entered into lis and formulated eight issues to decide the lis. While deciding issue no. The appellant/plaintiff has not acquired any manner of right or interest in the suit land either by adverse possession or in any manner and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial court entered into lis and formulated eight issues to decide the lis. While deciding issue no. III with regard to Dol settlement, the trial court discussed the evidence as well as exhibits and also considered the Bihar Land Reforms Act and came to the finding that the possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit land is not continuous, peaceful and hostile and the appellant/plaintiff could not claim his right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of Dol settlement of the year 1938 and, hence, such possession if any, of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit land may only be termed as “mere used at sufferance” and thus it cannot be said the appellant's adverse possession is confirmed over the suit land. Thus, the issues were decided against the appellant/plaintiff and in favour of the respondents/defendants. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.08.2015. Being aggrieved with this judgment, the appellant filed an appeal, which was numbered as Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No. 48 of 2015, which was decided vide judgment dated 22.05.2017 by the District Judge-XIII at Jamshedpur. The appellate court has also considered the evidences as well as the exhibits adduced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and came to the conclusion that for adverse possession, it is necessary for the person to admit the title of the real owner and to establish his open and hostile possession without any interruption. P.W.9 in paragraph 5 of his cross-examination stated that there are temples on the hills and general public comes for worship. The appellate court has also dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 22.05.2017. Aggrieved with this judgment, the appellant has preferred this Second Appeal. 6. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Dol settlement is of the year 1938, whereas, in view of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the cut-off date is made with effect from 01.01.1946. He further submits that the appellate court as well as the trial court were wrong in coming to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his case. He further submits that the appellate court as well as the trial court were wrong in coming to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his case. He further submits that law of adverse possession is also in favour of the appellant. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Mt. Ugni v. Chowa Mahto, reported in AIR 1968 Pat 302 (FB)and submits that if such a registered document is created, delivery of possession is not necessary to prove the title. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “10.It is true that a valid agricultural lease may be created by a registered instrument as pointed out in Jangal Singh v. Mukund Kumar, AIR 1948 Pat 446, and, if such a registered document is created, delivery of possession is not necessary to prove the title of the lessee.If, however, the lease is not registered, and is, therefore, inadmissible as evidence of title, it will always be open to the tenant concerned to show that he obtained raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord. There is also no legal bar to a person claiming raiyati interest on two alternative pleas. He may claim such a right op the basis of a written document of lease. If, however, such claim fails on the ground that the document, being compulsorily registrable, was not registered, nevertheless his alternative claim based on actual possession, coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord, may succeed. In that case, the un-registered lease will be admissible for the collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession.” He further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. O.V. Narasimha Setty (Dead) by Legal Representatives, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 488 . Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “17. In our considered view, the High Court has not given any cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that KS was not in possession of the property. His name figured in the revenue record from 1963 to 1981 as the owner in possession. Presumption of truth is attached to revenue record which has not been rebutted. In our considered view, the High Court has not given any cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that KS was not in possession of the property. His name figured in the revenue record from 1963 to 1981 as the owner in possession. Presumption of truth is attached to revenue record which has not been rebutted. The High Court has held, and rightly so, that in the proceedings decided in favour of KS, HR or his legal representatives were not made parties. However, the High Court lost sight of the fact that in the proceedings filed by AR, KS was not impleaded as a party though his name was shown in the revenue record. It is obvious that both sides had tried to obtain orders behind each other’s back. Reliance cannot be placed on either of the documents in which all the parties were not duly represented. The net result is that KS is not the owner of the property, but it is equally true that from 1963, he had been shown to be in possession pursuant to the application (Ext. P-10) and the order (Ext. P-11) of the Tahsildar. This possession was adverse to the true owner. It was openly hostile to the claim of HR and his legal representatives and they never filed a suit for possession of the property. Once it is held that KS was in possession of the suit property, the consequence will be that he is in adverse possession. The legal representatives of HR have failed to show how they obtained possession from HR. Even, according to the case of HR, it was AR who was in possession as a tenant. AR surrendered part of the land to KS and not to HR. No doubt, in later proceedings in which KS was not a party, AR made a statement that he was never a tenant in the suit, but such statement flies in the face of the pleadings of AR in OS No. 79 of 1949 filed by HR and the decisions in those proceedings. Furthermore, AR had executed a registered sale-cum-release deed jointly with KS and this was ratified by the Tahsildar. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the legal heirs of HR miserably failed to prove how they came into possession of the suit property. Furthermore, AR had executed a registered sale-cum-release deed jointly with KS and this was ratified by the Tahsildar. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the legal heirs of HR miserably failed to prove how they came into possession of the suit property. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the High Court gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that KS was not in possession of the suit property when the suit was filed. He may have been dispossessed after filing of the suit but that has no effect on the case.” Learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rohini Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1986 PLJR 963 . He submits that in view of the above judgments, the case of the appellant is fit to be considered and there is substantial question of law to admit this Second Appeal. He further submits that the cut-off date is 01.01.1946 and as the appellant came into possession of the land by Dol settlement in the year 1938, the appeal filed by the appellant is fit to be admitted. 7. Per contra, Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the witnesses have admitted that general public are used to go to temple for worship constructed on the suit land. He further submits that even assuming that there was a long and continuous possession, that by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. By way of referring the judgment of the appellate court, he submits that if the appellant is claiming right, title and interest in view of Dol settlement, the claim on the ground of adverse possession is not available to the appellant. To buttress his argument he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 229 . Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is, adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is, adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide P. Periasami v. P. Periathambi Md. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma.)” He further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 . Paragraph 63 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “63. When we consider the law of adverse possession as has developed vis-à-vis to property dedicated to public use, courts have been loath to confer the right by adverse possession. There are instances when such properties are encroached upon and then a plea of adverse possession is raised. In such cases, on the land reserved for public utility, it is desirable that rights should not accrue. The law of adverse possession may cause harsh consequences, hence, we are constrained to observe that it would be advisable that concerning such properties dedicated to public cause, it is made clear in the statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by adverse possession.” 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the judgment of the appellate court as well as the trial court. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties as well as exhibits and considered it on threadbare basis and came to the finding. On the side of the plaintiff, document dated 27.08.1938 has been relied. Much emphasis has been placed on that document. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties as well as exhibits and considered it on threadbare basis and came to the finding. On the side of the plaintiff, document dated 27.08.1938 has been relied. Much emphasis has been placed on that document. It was the case of the plaintiff himself that the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Anabad Sarbasadharan. This fact has been brought by the appellant/plaintiff. In that view of the matter, there is no need for the respondents'/defendants' side to prove this fact. The witnesses have stated that general public are used to go to temple for worship. The evidence brought by the appellant/plaintiff shows that the suit land is part of the Government land, where, there are number of temples, which are used by general public. Thus, the argument advanced by Mr. Rohitashya Roy is not accepted in view of these facts. Considering the fact that the land in question is being used by public at large and it is dedicated to public use and that is why adverse possession plea has been raised by the appellant/plaintiff, in view of this fact that the appellant will not be allowed to claim the suit land on the ground of Dol settlement as well as on the ground of adverse possession in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash and Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (supra). To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is, adverse possession, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner. Hence, there being no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal, the same stands dismissed.