JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte. 3. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2009 whereby and where under, by the said judgment of concurrence, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No.41 of 2002 dated 31.03.2009 by which the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on contest filed with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and for recovery of the possession of the suit land. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the record of right of the suit land is in the name of Anant Kumhar- the grandfather of the plaintiff as Kaimi. Anant Kumhar died leaving behind his only son Indru Kumhar who is the father of the plaintiff. Indru Kumhar died just after abolition of zamindari when the plaintiff was minor. In the meantime, Government of Bihar without notification and without paying compensation acquired the suit land and constructed a residential quarter over approximately 0.08 acres. The plaintiff knew about the land and applied for mutation of his name showing himself to be the heirs of the recorded tenant but the record of right of the mutation case filed by the plaintiff became unavailable after 06.07.2000 during the pendency of the mutation case in the Circle Office, Palkot. The concerned officers of the Circle Office, Palkot refused to trace out the record. The plaintiff asserted that Government without any right, title, interest and possession over the area of 1 acre was trying to capture the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. The concerned officers of the Circle Office, Palkot refused to trace out the record. The plaintiff asserted that Government without any right, title, interest and possession over the area of 1 acre was trying to capture the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Indru Kumhar- the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff applied for mutation of his name by showing of succession and the mutation was allowed in Mutation Case No.62/85-86 only in respect of an area of 2.89 acres instead of total area of khata no.673 being 3.97 acres. The plaintiff thereafter was advised by the Circle Officer to file a separate mutation case in respect of the remaining 1.08 acres of land, the case record of which remains traceless during the pendency of the case. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. In their written statement, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and admitted that khata no.673 of revenue village Palkot, plot no.1656 measuring an area of 1.08 acres was recorded in 1932 survey in the name of Anant Kumhar, son of Sita Ram Kumhar but it denied that Rajendra Kumhar is the successor of Indru Kumhar. Genealogy table has been furnished by the defendants and from the genealogy table, it appears that Anant Kumhar had three sons being Meghnath Kumhar, Indru Kumhar and Chandra Kumhar. Chandra Kumhar was married but he died issueless and Meghnath Kumhar also died issueless. Indru Kumhar had only one daughter namely Lalo Devi. After death of Meghnath Kumhar, the widow of Meghnath Kumhar was kept as concubine by his younger brother Indru Kumhar and thus Rajendra Kumhar is not the legal son of Indru Kumhar and Rajendra Kumhar has no right, title and interest in this case and the suit is not maintainable. The defendants further pleaded that the suit land was duly acquired by the Government of Bihar after abolition of zamindari in 1955-56 and for this, Indru Kumhar son of Anant Kumhar was paid Rs.700/- only as compensation for the said land. The residential quarter of circle officer is situated over 15 decimals of the acquired land and the remaining 93 decimals of plot no.1656 is also in peaceful possession of the Government of Jharkhand since 1956. The residential quarter of circle officer is situated over 15 decimals of the acquired land and the remaining 93 decimals of plot no.1656 is also in peaceful possession of the Government of Jharkhand since 1956. When the residence of circle officer was being constructed, after due acquisition and payment of compensation to Indru Kumhar who was alive along with his wife Bandhani Devi and widow of Meghnath Kumhar, they never claimed the suit land. Indru Kumhar and his wife Bandhani Devi died around 1978 and 1979 respectively while the legally married wife of Meghnath Kumhar died in 1980 but she also did not make any claim of the suit land. In Mutation Case No.62/85-86, an area of 2.79 acres was recorded as succession mutation but suit land was left because of previous acquisition by the then Government of Bihar. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following seven issues:- (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in his present form? (2) Whether, the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit land? (3) Whether, the suit is barred by law of limitation? (4) Whether, the suit land is ancestral land of plaintiff? (5) Whether, the genealogy of the plaintiff is correct? (6) Whether, the plaintiff has got right title interest and possession over the suit land? (7) Whether, the plaintiff is entitled to relief as claimed or any other reliefs? 7. The learned trial court first took up issue no. (6) and after considering the evidence in the record i.e. the oral testimony of six witnesses examined by the plaintiff and the documentary evidence of rent receipt and zamindari receipt which have been marked as Ext. 1 and 2 series respectively as well as the five witnesses examined by the defendants and the documents which have been marked as Ext. A and B came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue nos. (4) and (5) together and came to the conclusion that the genealogy given by the plaintiff is not correct and the suit land is not the ancestral land of the plaintiff. The learned trial court then took up issue no. (3) and held that the suit is barred by limitation. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue nos. (4) and (5) together and came to the conclusion that the genealogy given by the plaintiff is not correct and the suit land is not the ancestral land of the plaintiff. The learned trial court then took up issue no. (3) and held that the suit is barred by limitation. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue nos. (1), (2) and (7) and found that the State of Jharkhand being the Government was not impleaded as a party to the suit. The suit is filed in view of Order XXVII Rule 5A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial court also found that as the plaintiff has not furnished the boundary of the suit property in respect of which recovery of possession was sought by him hence, the description of the suit property is not sufficient to identify the possession of the property sought to be recovered hence, on that count also, the suit is bad and the relief sought for cannot be given and ultimately, held that the suit is not maintainable and also held that the plaintiff has no valid cause of action and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed by him and dismissed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.13 of 2009 in the court of learned District Judge, Gumla which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 9. The learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is the son of Indru Kumhar and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to right, title and interest over the suit land and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 10. At the time of Admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed vide order dated 07.09.2022 :- (i) Whether an illegitimate son from a concubine is entitled to inherit the property of his father? 10. At the time of Admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed vide order dated 07.09.2022 :- (i) Whether an illegitimate son from a concubine is entitled to inherit the property of his father? (ii) Whether the entry in the record of rights of the ancestors of the plaintiff which has subsequently been, deleted, will accrue any title to the plaintiff who is admittedly not in possession of the suit land? 11. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendants being the State have admitted that the plaintiff is the illegitimate son of Indru Kumhar having born through his concubine. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Revanasiddappa and another v. Mallikarjun and other reported (2011) 11 SCC 1 , paragraph no.45 to 47 of which reads as under:- “45. In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents whether self-acquired or ancestral. 46. For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in Jinia, Neelamma and Bharatha Matha on Section 16(3) of the Act. 47. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that purpose the records of the case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.” And submits that it is the admitted case of the defendants that the plaintiff is the illegitimate son of Indru Kumhar. Hence, the learned trial court ought to have declared right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. 12. Regarding the second substantial question of law, Ms. Sunita Kumari relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balwant Singh & Another vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) By LRS. And Others reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , paragraph no.18 of which reads as under:- “18. 12. Regarding the second substantial question of law, Ms. Sunita Kumari relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balwant Singh & Another vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) By LRS. And Others reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , paragraph no.18 of which reads as under:- “18. On the point of possession, it is the argument of Mr Sanyal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, that all the three courts below went wrong in assuming that as a result of mutation bearing No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi divested herself of her title and possession to the suit property and from that date the title in the suit property and possession thereof vested with the persons in whose favour mutation was effected, namely, Balwant Singh and Kartar Singh. The legal effect of mutation, according to the learned counsel, has been clearly laid down by this Court in a recent judgment in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur [ (1996) 6 SCC 223 : JT (1996) 7 SC 580]. According to the learned counsel, mutation of the property in the revenue record will not extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, by Mutation No. 1311, the widow has not been divested of her title in the properties and consequently she continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. She became an absolute owner of the properties on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In any case, the learned counsel further argued that after the decree in Suit No. 194 of 1955 as confirmed by the appellate court, there was a re-mutation in favour of the widow under Mutation No. 1348. That re-mutation having been allowed to remain unchallenged, whatever the effect of Mutation No. 1311, has been reversed by the latter Mutation No. 1348. That re-mutation having been allowed to remain unchallenged, whatever the effect of Mutation No. 1311, has been reversed by the latter Mutation No. 1348. On the basis of these arguments, learned counsel submitted that the appeals are to be allowed, if not in full, except to the extent the properties covered by the gift deed in favour of Makan Singh.” And submits that since at some point of time, the record of right in the name of ancestors of the plaintiff was existing hence, subsequent deletion of the name of the ancestors from the record of right cannot extinguish the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and hence, both the courts below ought to have held that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, so far as the first substantial question of law as to whether an illegitimate son from a concubine is entitled to inherit the property of his father is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jinia Keotin and others v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 730 , has settled the law of the right of illegitimate child for inheritance by observing thus in paragraph no. 3 and 5 which reads as under :- “3. Shri Lakshmi Raman Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, while reiterating the stand taken before the courts below, vehemently contended that once the children born out of void and illegal marriage have been specifically safeguarded under Section 16, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1976, there is no justification to deny them equal treatment on a par with the children born of the wife in lawful wedlock by countenancing claims for inheritance even in the ancestral coparcenary property. Xxxxxx 5. Xxxxxx 5. So far as Section 16 of the Act is concerned, though it was enacted to legitimise children, who would otherwise suffer by becoming illegitimate, at the same time it expressly provides in sub-section (3) by engrafting a provision with a non obstante clause stipulating specifically that nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage, which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, “any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents”. In the light of such an express mandate of the legislature itself, there is no room for according upon such children who but for Section 16 would have been branded as illegitimate any further rights than envisaged therein by resorting to any presumptive or inferential process of reasoning, having recourse to the mere object or purpose of enacting Section 16 of the Act. Any attempt to do so would amount to doing not only violence to the provision specifically engrafted in sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act but also would amount to court relegislating on the subject under the guise of interpretation, against even the will expressed in the enactment itself. Consequently, we are unable to countenance the submissions on behalf of the appellants. The view taken by the courts below cannot be considered to suffer from any serious infirmity to call for our interference, in this appeal.” 14. In the case of Revanasiddappa and another v. Mallikarjun and other (supra), the Hon’ble two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has only expressed opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that purpose, the record of the case be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of the larger Bench. 15. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that she has no information as to any judgment having been rendered by a larger Bench in the matter as yet. 16. 15. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that she has no information as to any judgment having been rendered by a larger Bench in the matter as yet. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that still the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of succession of illegitimate son from a concubine as settled in Jinia Keotin and others v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and others (supra) holds this field which is to the effect that children born of void or voidable marriage are not entitled to claim inheritance in the ancestral coparcenary property but entitled to claim inheritance in property of parents. The Supreme Court has the occasion to consider the effect of its own judgment being referred by another bench of equal strength to a larger bench in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Applied Electronics Ltd. reported in (2017) 2 SCC 37 paragraph-27 of which reads as under:- “27. Section 5 which commences with a non obstante clause clearly stipulates that no judicial authority shall interfere except where so provided in Part I of the 1996 Act. As we perceive, the 1996 Act is a complete code and Section 5 in categorical terms along with other provisions, lead to a definite conclusion that no other provision can be attracted. Thus, the application of CPC is not conceived of and, therefore, as a natural corollary, the cross-objection cannot be entertained. Though we express our view in the present manner, the judgment rendered in ITI Ltd. [ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 510 ] is a binding precedent. The three-Judge Bench decision in International Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd. [MCD v. International Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 250 ] can be distinguished as that is under the 1940 Act which has Section 41 which clearly states that the procedure of CPC would be applicable to appeals. The analysis made in ITI Ltd. [ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 510 ] to the effect that merely because the 1996 Act does not provide CPC to be applicable, it should not be inferred that the Code is inapplicable seems to be incorrect, for the scheme of the 1996 Act clearly envisages otherwise and the legislative intendment also so postulates. Wherein though the Supreme Court observed that, the judgment rendered in ITI Ltd. [ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 510 ] is a binding precedent, even though it report the matter to a larger bench under consideration. Hence, the first substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. So far as the second substantial question of law as to whether the entry in the record of rights of the ancestors of the plaintiff which has subsequently been, deleted, will accrue any title to the plaintiff who is admittedly not in possession of the suit land is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balwant Singh & Another vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) By LRS. And Others (supra) that entry in the mutation of the property in the revenue record will not extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the entry in the record of right of the ancestors of the plaintiff which was subsequently deleted by itself will not accrue any title to the plaintiff who is admittedly not in possession of the suit land. The second substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 18. Now coming to the facts of the case, the suit was not only dismissed because the plaintiff was illegitimate son of Indru Kumhar. Both the courts below have returned the concurrent finding of fact that the suit land was acquired by the Government on payment of Rs.700/- towards compensation to the father of the plaintiff and such acquisition has reached finality having not been challenged by the father or mother or the legitimate daughter of the father of the plaintiff at any time. Further, the suit was dismissed for non-compliance of mandatory provision of Order XXVII Rule 5A of the Code of Civil Procedure which envisages that when the suit is instituted against a public officer for damages or other relief in respect of any act alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity, Government shall be joined as a party to the suit but in this case, admittedly, the Government has not been impleaded as a party. Further, both the courts below have also concurred that the description of the suit land in respect of which recovery of possession is sought and which is admittedly a part plot; has not been made by giving the boundary of the same and in the absence of the same, no executable decree can be passed. 19. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed ex-parte but under the circumstances without any costs. 21. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.