JUDGMENT : Kailash Prasad Deo, J. 1. Heard, the parties. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.07.2016 (decree signed on 04.08.2016) passed by learned District Judge-II, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 43 of 2012 affirming the judgment dated 29.02.2012 decree signed on 06.03.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 151 of 1994. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Indrajit Sinha has vehemently argued the case and has submitted that the instant appeal has been preferred with a delay of 98 days and for condonation of the same, I.A. No. 1701 of 2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred and I.A. No. 5235 of 2017 has been preferred under Order XLI Rule 5 of the C.P.C., 1908 for stay of the Execution Case No. 4 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Dhanbad. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the concurrent findings of the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below on the following grounds:- (i) The trial court has failed to give any reason in support of its finding while deciding issue Nos. 3, 4, and 5. The purported reasons given by the learned Appellate Court in support of the aforesaid issues at paras 22 and 23 cannot cure the defects in the judgment of the original court. (ii) The finding of the appellate court with regard to error in Khata Number is perverse as the letter of Circle Officer is not an evidence which could have been relied upon for that finding. (iii) The non-framing of the specific issue by the trial court and the appellate court with regard to the error in the Khata number is fatal. (iv) The finding of the appellate court with regard to issue Nos. 1 and 2 do not meet the requirements of order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (iii) The non-framing of the specific issue by the trial court and the appellate court with regard to the error in the Khata number is fatal. (iv) The finding of the appellate court with regard to issue Nos. 1 and 2 do not meet the requirements of order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2020 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 18092 of 2014) and has submitted that the First Appellate Court has not considered the purport of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, submitted that the impugned judgment may be set aside by this Court. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials brought on record. It appears that the instant Second Appeal has been preferred against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. It also appears that plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 to 10 filed Title Suit No. 151 of 1994 against the appellant/defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 6. As per the case of the plaintiffs/respondents, the land of Mauza- Kalakusma within Police Station of Dhanbad described in Schedule -A formerly belonged to one Rani Smt. Prayag Kumari Devi, W/o Raja Durga Prasad Singh of Jharia being 'Khas' land of her. The said land was transferred in favour of Jagat Chandra Sarkar and Sourendra Chandra Mallick and by registered permanent settlement by virtue of a registered sale deed of patta dated 04.04.1946 being Deed No. 2748 for a salami of Rs. 345/- and annual rent of Rs. 11 and the cess of 8 annas and on accepting these salami two settlees i.e. Jagat Chandra Sarkar and Sourendra Chandra Mallick were delivered possession of the schedule -A property in respect of area covered under Deed dated 04.04.1946. 7. Jagat Chandra Sarkar while in exclusive possession over the Schedule-A property died in the year, 1963 leaving behind his four sons, four daughters and widow, namely, Khirod Sarkar, Prasanta Sarkar, Susanta Sarkar and Kalyan Sarkar (all four sons), Smt. Bela Devi, Smt. Lila Devi, Smt. Shila Devi and Dipali Devi (all four daughters) and widow, Smt. Bagala Bala Devi. 7. Jagat Chandra Sarkar while in exclusive possession over the Schedule-A property died in the year, 1963 leaving behind his four sons, four daughters and widow, namely, Khirod Sarkar, Prasanta Sarkar, Susanta Sarkar and Kalyan Sarkar (all four sons), Smt. Bela Devi, Smt. Lila Devi, Smt. Shila Devi and Dipali Devi (all four daughters) and widow, Smt. Bagala Bala Devi. Widow, Smt. Bagala Bala Devi died and Khirod Sarkar also died leaving behind his widow, Smt. Meena Devi and two daughters, Swati Devi and Smt. Arundat Devi, who were plaintiff nos. 8 to 10 being the legal heirs and successors of Late Jagat Chandra Sarkar and got inherited. 8. Further case of the plaintiffs is that defendant Nos. 5 to 9 while in possession of the aforesaid Schedule-A land amicably partitioned and divided the same in the year, 1986 and in the said amicable decision, the Schedule-B property fell into the exclusive share of the plaintiffs and the remaining half of the share of the defendant Nos. 5 to 9 and thus, the plaintiffs became the absolute and exclusive possession of the entire area, as described in Schedule- B. The plaintiff's father paid rent to the landlord and after vesting throughout paid rent to the State of Bihar. Due to misreading of the 'khatiyan' it was inadvertently written as 42 in place of 142 although the Mauza number, plot number and area are correctly written in the deed dated 04.04.1946, in as much as land settled being Plot number as given in the Schedule of deed dated 04.04.1946 is not at all the subject -matter of Khatiyan No. 2, it was really and actually settlement covered under the Deed No. 2748 in respect of the plots and area specifically mentioned in the deed as the settlees of the deed were/are in possession all along and continued in exclusive possession of their lands. 9. The aforesaid mistake in the Deed No. 2748 was detected recently at the time of a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C., which was started at the instance of the defendants though formal error in the deed does not affect in any way the right, title and ownership of the plaintiffs, but to avoid any future complications the plaintiffs seek reliefs. The aforesaid mistake in the Deed No. 2748 was detected recently at the time of a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C., which was started at the instance of the defendants though formal error in the deed does not affect in any way the right, title and ownership of the plaintiffs, but to avoid any future complications the plaintiffs seek reliefs. The plaintiffs are the rightful owner and in possession of Schedule-B property which is part and parcel of Schedule-A property, Recently, it has been found that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through their Civil Engineering Department, Dhanbad has issued a Tender Notice being No. BCCL/CE/93-9/11017-53 inviting for construction of compound wall around Schedule-B land for proposed construction of Delhi Public School at Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad as well as the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with a view to extension of school over the portion of Schedule-B land, which is wholly illegal and unfair. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 having no right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule-B land, but by show of power, they are trying to grab the land. Without paying any compensation to the plaintiffs and without any information to plaintiffs, the rightful owners of the absolute property, the action of the defendants are wholly arbitrarily and illegal. Therefore the cause of action arose on January, 1994 when the Tender Notice were issued and August, 1994 when the defendants started construction of compound wall in Schedule-B land. 10. Without paying any compensation to the plaintiffs and without any information to plaintiffs, the rightful owners of the absolute property, the action of the defendants are wholly arbitrarily and illegal. Therefore the cause of action arose on January, 1994 when the Tender Notice were issued and August, 1994 when the defendants started construction of compound wall in Schedule-B land. 10. Thus, the plaintiffs prayed for following reliefs:- "(a) That a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for confirmation of possession over the land described in schedule 'B' below on declaration of the plaintiffs' permanent raiyati right over the same by virtue of settlement registered deed No. 2748 dated 04.04.1946 of Dhanbad Sb Registration office executed and registered by Rani Prayag Kumari Devi in favour of Jagat Chandra Sarkar and S.C. Mallick with a further declaration that by the aforesaid settlement deed the land described in the said deed and the schedule "A" of the plaint has been really and actually sold (settled) to Jagat Chandra Sarkar and S.C. Mallick by Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and the Khata No. 42 mentioned in the said settlement deed is merely a mistake and misdescription in place of Khata No. 142 which is the real and actual Khata covered by the plot numbers and area referred to in the deed settled, transferred and conveyed to Jagat Chandra Sarkar and S.C. Mallick. (b) That the plaintiffs have been in possession of the land described in the Schedule-"B" below but if in the meanwhile they are dispossessed by the Defendants a decree for recovery of possession of the same against the Defendants be also granted. (c) That a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants their men, agents, servants, representatives from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the land described in the schedule-"B" below or in any way damaging or changing the nature and character of the said land or to act in any way. (d) That a decree for all costs of the suit against the defendants. (e) That for any other or further relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled to under the law and equity. (d) That a decree for all costs of the suit against the defendants. (e) That for any other or further relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled to under the law and equity. SCHEDULE “A” With Mouza Kolakushma No.12, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad under Khata No.142 bearing S.S. Plot No. 3262/3692 area 4.50 acres No. 2090 area 1.76 acres No. 2098 area 1.41 acres 7.67 acres SCHEDULE “B” Out of Schedule 'A' under khata No. 142 Plot No. 3262/3692 area 2.25 acres on the Northern side Plot No. 2090 area 0.88 acres on the Eastern side Plot No.2098 area 0.705 acres on East side” 11. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared. They contested the case by filing the written statement. The defendants have challenged the maintainability of the suit and also claimed that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit nor any cause of action for the suit. The suit is barred under the provisions of Coal Mines Nationalization Act as well as the Land Acquisition Act and the suit is barred by law of limitation, principles of waver, acquiescence, estoppel and barred under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and barred under the Principles of Specific Relief Act and also by law of adverse possession. The suit is barred for misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties and the State of Bihar is the necessary party has not been impleaded in the suit. 12. The plaintiffs or their predecessors of the concerned defendants never came in possession of the land nor possessed the Schedule-A land at any point of time. Neither Jagat Chandra Sarkar nor Sourendra Chandra Mallick ever possessed the Schedule-A land and the plaintiffs are neither the rightful owner nor ever came in possession of the land at any point of time. The tender notice has been issued by the concerned authority after being satisfied with the right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule-B land and hence there is no illegality. The BCCL obtained land through L.A. Proceeding. The tender notice has been issued by the concerned authority after being satisfied with the right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule-B land and hence there is no illegality. The BCCL obtained land through L.A. Proceeding. The suit land along with other lands have been acquired by the Central Government vis-- vis B.C.C.L. by requisition under the land Acquisition Act through the agency of the State of Bihar in L.A. Case No. 20A/81-82 and after completion of such acquisition proceeding, the possession of the said acquired land including the suit land have been handed to the defendant in May, 1989 by the Dhanbad District Administration through written order communicated by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad vide his letter No. 2431 dated 15.07.1988. In view of the acquisition of the suit land under the L.A. Act on preparation of the award and handing over the possession of the land right, title and interest of any one whatsoever in respect of the lands stood extinguished in favour of the B.C.C.L. and B.C.C.L. having come into peaceful possession of the suit land in view of the delivery of possession, prayed the suit be dismissed. 13. The trial court framed seven issues:-(from page No. 56) "I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? II. Have the plaintiffs got valid cause of action? III. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired a valid title out of their settlement deed dated 04.04.1946 and the same is genuine? IV. Whether the plaintiffs have exercised any acts of possession over the suit land? V. Whether the defendants have got any right over the part of the suit land on the basis of the documents as relied on the written statement? VI. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any decree as claimed in the plaint? VII. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled under the law and equity?" 14. The plaintiffs/respondents have examined altogether eleven witnesses:- "In the trial court plaintiffs/respondent Nos. VI. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any decree as claimed in the plaint? VII. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled under the law and equity?" 14. The plaintiffs/respondents have examined altogether eleven witnesses:- "In the trial court plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 10 have examined eleven witnesses namely, P.W. 1 Kalyan Sarkar, he is himself the plaintiff No. 1, P.W. 2 Srikant Chandra Kumbhakar, he is a formal witness and advocate clerk, P.W. 3 is Chhotu Mandal, P.W. 4 is Samar Mahato, he is also a formal witness and Advocate Clerk, P.W. 5 is Ram Chandra Mahato, P.W. 6 is Ram Prasad Pandey, he is also a formal witness and Advocate Clerk, P.W. 7 is Abhay Kant Pathak, Revenue Collector, P.W. 8 is Yogeshwar Mahato, P.W. 9 is Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, P.W. 10 is A.C. Kumbhakar he is also a formal witness and Advocate Clerk and P.W. 11 is Satya Narayan Pandey, he is also a formal witness and Advocate Clerk." The plaintiffs/respondents have also exhibited a number of documents:- "Ext. 1 is the Patta Deed dated 04.04.1946, Ext. 2 is the Power of Attorney, Ext. 3 to 3/a, 3/b, 3/c, 3/d and 3/e are the rent receipts, Ext. 4 is the certified copy of Register-2 which has been substituted, Ext. 4/a is Tenancy ledger, Ext. 5 is the letter of Anchal Adhikari which is carbon copy, Ext. 6 and 7 are the certified copy of Khatiyan." 15. The defendants have marked as three exhibits on record as Exhibit-A to Exhibit-C. Exhibit-A is letter No. 2431 dated 15.07.1988 issued by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, Exhibit-B is the carbon copy of the letter of Memo No. 747 dated 25.05.1989 of Anchal Adhikari addressed to the Additional Collector and Exhibit-C is the Map. 16. Learned trial court on the basis of appreciation of the evidence held that Khata No. 142 has been wrongly written as 42 in the registered deed dated 04.04.1946 (Exhibit-1), but Mouza number, Plot number and area all are correct. There is no existence of Khata No. 42 rather existence of Khata No. 142 is there; as such, there is no illegality in the same. After thorough discussion and relying upon the materials available on record including oral and documentary evidence, decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. There is no existence of Khata No. 42 rather existence of Khata No. 142 is there; as such, there is no illegality in the same. After thorough discussion and relying upon the materials available on record including oral and documentary evidence, decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned appellate court has also framed three points for determination of appeal which are as follows:- I. Whether the suit maintainable in its present form? II. Have the plaintiffs got valid cause of action? III. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired a valid title but of their settlement deed dated 04.04.1946 and the same is genuine? Learned appellate court after considering the entire evidence afresh reflecting the conscious application of mind, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and going through the materials brought on record, it appears that no substantial question of law is made out to admit this appeal under Section 100, CPC. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that trial court has failed to give any reason in support of its findings while deciding the issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it appears from the record itself that the trial court has discussed the issue in detail. 18. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and that all the issues have been dealt properly by giving finding, which has again appreciated by the learned appellate court, on the basis of conscious application of mind the materials available on record, the learned appellate court has concurred with the finding recorded by the learned trial court. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants is not substantial question of law, so as to admit this appeal. 19. The second submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants that is with regard to error in Khata number and non-framing of specific issue by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court with regard to the error in Khata number. 20. This Court has considered the judgment passed by both the courts below and have considered the materials available on record including the documents and public document issued by the Circle Officer. In this context the Hon'ble Apex Court has already dealt such issue in the case of Sheodhyan Singh and Ors. 20. This Court has considered the judgment passed by both the courts below and have considered the materials available on record including the documents and public document issued by the Circle Officer. In this context the Hon'ble Apex Court has already dealt such issue in the case of Sheodhyan Singh and Ors. v. Musammat Sanichara Kuer and Ors., reported in (1962) 2 SCR 753 : AIR 1963 SC 1879 and as held that mere misdescription of plot number in the document do not cast any doubt in identity of the said plot. The area, boundary and description are correct though the learned trial courts below have not framed such issue with regard to correction of plot number but has dealt the same elaborately. In view of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Sheodhyan Singh and Ors. (supra) no substantial question of law is made out, as the discussion is with regard to typographical error in Khata number, which has been wrongly written as 42 instead of 142. Both the courts below have considered the same from the registered deed dated 04.04.1946 (Exhibit-1) and compared the Mouza number, Plot number and area and the physical description of the land coupled with the letter issued by the Circle Officer with Exhibits-1, 4 and 4/a, 5, 6 and 7 as well as Exhibit-A, letter No. 2431 dated 15.07.1988 issued by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, Exhibit-B, the carbon copy of the letter of Memo No. 747 dated 25.05.1989 of Anchal Adhikari addressed to the Additional Collector and Exhibit-C, Map of the land. As such, both the submissions made by the learned counsel is of no help for the appellants. So far the last submission, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to not meeting the requirement of order XLI, Rule 31, CPC and the judgment relied by the learned counsel i.e. (2001) 3 SCC 179 Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari followed recently by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malluru Mallappa (D) Thr. Lrs. s. Kuruvathappa and Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18092 of 2014) is concerned, both the judgments says only one thing that the first appellate court must display conscious application of mind while recording the findings. 21. Lrs. s. Kuruvathappa and Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18092 of 2014) is concerned, both the judgments says only one thing that the first appellate court must display conscious application of mind while recording the findings. 21. This Court has perused the same and has found that the learned appellate court has considered the same, in detail while deciding issue No. 3 and has held that the plaintiffs have been able to substantiate that they have acquired the right and title over the suit land. From perusal of Exhibit-5, it appears that the Anchal Adhikari has mentioned that the Khata number has been written as 42 but correct Khata number is 142 and has supported the case of the plaintiffs. The defendants are the public Sector Units and they have claimed to get the land from the State on the basis of acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act vide L.A. Case No. 20A/81-82. 22. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the defendants/appellants have no right to challenge the title of the plaintiff as defendants are claiming the land by way of proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, vide L.A. Case No. 20A/81-82. From the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, it appears that issue No. v has been framed by the learned trial court "whether the defendants have got any right over the part of the suit land on the basis of the documents as relied on the written statement, but while discussing the issue No. v, the learned trial court has held that the suit land has never been acquired by the B.C.C.L. No notice was received regarding acquisition of land from the office of land acquisition. The government has also not acquired the same nor any gazette notification was published. The suit land is of Khata No. 142 which was wrongly mentioned in the settlement deed as Khata No. 42 but plot number, Rakba and Mouza are correct, which was recorded in the name of the father of the plaintiffs having jamabandi No. 161. Even the learned trial court has held that the aforesaid land is of Khata No. 142 wrongly mentioned as 42 is not the part of the land acquisition proceeding under L.A. Case No. 20A/81-82. The learned lower appellate court has considered this issue in para 25 of the appellate court's judgment that defendants/appellant Nos. Even the learned trial court has held that the aforesaid land is of Khata No. 142 wrongly mentioned as 42 is not the part of the land acquisition proceeding under L.A. Case No. 20A/81-82. The learned lower appellate court has considered this issue in para 25 of the appellate court's judgment that defendants/appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any judgment of L.A. Case No. 20A/81-82 to show that the suit land was included in that case. In the appellate stage, the defendants/appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a letter of the Additional Collector, Dhanbad (Exhibit A), but in this letter Khata number and Plot number are not mentioned. Even carbon copy of the letter of Anchal Adhikari addressed to the Additional Collector, Dhanbad which has been marked as Exhibit-B, it has been submitted that dakhal dehani was given to the appellants and Exhibit-C is the map, but in this letter, it has not been mentioned that how the possession of the land was given to the representative of the B.C.C.L. and there are no documents of the title. The appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to produce any paper even before the learned appellate Court to show that they have any right and title over the same. 23. This Court has considered both aspects of the matter and has found that Khata No. 142 is wrongly mentioned as 42 of Mauza- Kalakusma No. 12, P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad, Plot Nos. 3262/3692, 2092 and 2098 mentioned in Schedule-A and B are not part of L.A. Case No. 20A/81-82, but a carbon copy of the letter of Anchala Adhikari addressed to the Additional Collector, Dhanbad which has been marked Exhibit-B showing the Dakhal Dehani in favour of the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Exhibit-C, map is not sufficient to hold that BCCL has legally got possession over the land. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment passed by both the courts below do not invite any interference by. this Court, as such, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 24. Since the main appeal has already been dismissed, as such, I.A. No. 1701 of 2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation for condonation of delay of 98 days without any satisfactory explanation of day to day delay is hereby dismissed. this Court, as such, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 24. Since the main appeal has already been dismissed, as such, I.A. No. 1701 of 2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation for condonation of delay of 98 days without any satisfactory explanation of day to day delay is hereby dismissed. Further I.A. No. 5235 of 2017 filed under Order XLI, Rule 5, CPC for stay of Execution Case No. 4 of 2013 is also dismissed.