JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard and disposed of ex-parte. 3. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the reversal dated 27.03.2006 passed by Additional District Judge-I, Rajmahal, in Title Appeal No.24 of 1992 by which the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs filed with the prayer for:- (a) decree declaring the title of the plaintiff over the suit land; (b) possession of the suit land through court and mesne profit of Rs.500/- and future main profit and cost of the suit. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the appellants before this Court were the original defendants first party and the respondents herein are the original plaintiffs and the plaintiffs and defendants first party are Santhals and they are governed by customary law in matter of succession and inheritance. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj is the defendant second party of the suit. It is admitted case of both the plaintiffs and defendants that Dhani Maghiyan (also known as Dhani Marandi) of whom the plaintiffs are the descendants and Mati Maghiyan (Mati Marandi) of whom the defendants are the descendants were two sisters being the daughters of Narayan Murmu. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land belongs to them through their ancestor Dhani Maghiyan whereas the land of the ancestors of the defendants namely Mati Maghiyan was recorded separately under Jamabandi No. 23. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants illegally claimed the suit land for which R.E. Case No.20/1989-90 was filed in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj. The Circle Officer, Taljhari accepted the case of the plaintiffs and recommended for eviction of the defendants- first party from the suit land but the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj in his order dated 10.09.1990 held that since the title of the suit land is involved in the matter and as such the matter may be decided in a separate suit. The Circle Officer, Taljhari accepted the case of the plaintiffs and recommended for eviction of the defendants- first party from the suit land but the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj in his order dated 10.09.1990 held that since the title of the suit land is involved in the matter and as such the matter may be decided in a separate suit. The plaintiffs claimed that they have been paying up-to-date rent to the Land Revenue Department in respect of the suit land and having rent receipts and their names have been entered in the settlement operation which was going on under Jamabandi No.23. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the said suit. 5. The case of the defendants on the other hand is that the plaintiffs have lost their title over the suit land for having no possession over the suit land for more than 40 years. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following seven issues:- (1). Is the suit as framed maintainable? (2). Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit?? (3). Has this court got jurisdiction to hear the suit if so does section 63 of the S.P.T. Act not hit it? (4). Has the defendant not acquired title by adverse possession? (5). Is the custom of Taben Jom among Santhals not prevalent in the matter of gift to his sister by Santhal recorded tenant? (6). Is the plaintiff rightful owner of the suit land and entitled to get a decree as prayed for? (7). To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to get? 7. Since the defendants undertook the plea of adverse possession, so the defendants began to adduce the evidence. From the side of the defendants, six witnesses were examined. The certified copy of Khatiyan (record of rights) of Jambandi No.23 was proved and marked exhibit from both the sides. From the side of the plaintiffs the Khatiyan (record of rights) was marked Ext. 1 and from the side of the defendants the Khatiyan (record of rights) was marked Ext. A. The plaintiffs also examined one witness. The Khatiyan (record of rights) which has been marked Ext. 1 shows that Jambandi No.23 stands recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs. 8. The learned trial court took up issue Nos. 1 and from the side of the defendants the Khatiyan (record of rights) was marked Ext. A. The plaintiffs also examined one witness. The Khatiyan (record of rights) which has been marked Ext. 1 shows that Jambandi No.23 stands recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs. 8. The learned trial court took up issue Nos. 4 and 5 together and observed that as the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case upon their owns legs and the defendants successfully proved that they have been in actual possession of the suit land for more than 40 years, it decided the issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Issue No.3 was not pressed. Because of the findings to the other issues, the trial court answered the issue Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 in negative and dismissed the suit on contest. 9. The learned first appellate court framed the following three points for determination:- (i) Whether the suit land was transferred by the recorded tenant Dhani Majhiyan to her sister Mati Majhyan as Taben jom, the Customay Law of Santhal? (ii) Whether the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession? (iii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 10. The learned first appellate court took up points No. (i) and (ii) which cropped up for determination together and considered the fact that as no previous written permission of the Deputy Commissioner was obtained for the gift alleged to have been given by Dhani Majhiyan to the ancestors of the plaintiffs and to her sister Mati Majhyan, the ancestor of the defendants, hence, the first appellate court did not believe the claim of transfer of land by Dhani Majhiyan to her sister Mati Majhyan as Taben Jom which is stated to be a custom among the Santhals by which land is transferred to the person to consume the usufruct thereof. 11. 11. Learned first appellate court considered that there is no pleading or evidence put forth by the defendants regarding the animus possidendi against the true owner namely Dhani Majhiyan and at best Mati Majhyan as per the case of the defendants, was in permissive possession of the suit land so it was held by the learned first appellate court that the defendant cannot claim title on the basis of adverse possession and considering the continuous possession of the plaintiffs and their ancestors which is evident from the Khatiyan (record of rights), held that the plaintiffs are having title over the suit land and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. 12. At the time of hearing of this second appeal, the following two substantial questions of law were formulated:- (1) Whether the Court of Appeal below has committed error of law in reversing the finding recorded by the trial court? (2) Whether the question of adverse possession has been correctly decided by the Court below? 13. Mr. Gautam Kumar- learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Others vs. Manjit Kaur & Others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 paragraph-60 of which reads as under:- “60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e. adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. Trespasser's long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession. Trespasser's possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from a trespasser at any point in time. Possessor looks after the property, protects it and in case of agricultural property by and large the concept is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard labour and makes the land cultivable. The owner can take possession from a trespasser at any point in time. Possessor looks after the property, protects it and in case of agricultural property by and large the concept is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard labour and makes the land cultivable. The legislature in various States confers rights based on possession.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the evidence in the record put forth by the defendants is sufficient to confer the title upon the defendants by way of adverse possession. Hence, the learned first appellate court erred by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by which the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Gautam Kumar that the learned first appellate court, without proper appreciation of the evidences, erroneously reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. It is lastly submitted by Mr Goutam, Kumar that the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate court being not sustainable in law be set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court be restored. 14. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in the record, let me first take up the second substantial question of law. It is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Others vs. Manjit Kaur & Others (supra) that adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely (i) adequate in continuity, (ii) adequate in publicity and (iii) adverse to a competitor in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India & Others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 inter alia observed as under: (SCC p. 785, para 11) “11. Xxxxxx Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Xxxxxx Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.” 15. Now coming to the facts of this case in their written statement, the defendants have accepted the title of the plaintiffs as is crystal clear from paragraph-7 of the written statement wherein they have pleaded that the plaintiffs have lost their title only because the defendants have not been in possession of the suit land for more than 40 years; but the defendants have failed to give the date as to on which date their possession became hostile to the true owner that is the plaintiffs or their ancestors. In the absence of this essential ingredient for perfection of title by way of adverse possession which has been discussed in detail by the learned first appellate court in the impugned judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the trial court erred in arriving at the conclusion that the defendant first party has perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. But the first appellate court has rightly came to the conclusion that the defendant first party failed to establish perfection of their title by way of adverse possession. The 2nd substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 16. Now coming to the first substantial question of law regarding whether the first appellate court has committed error of law in reversing the finding of the trial court is concerned, it is pertinent to refer Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 which reads as under:- 20. Transfer of raiyat's rights. 16. Now coming to the first substantial question of law regarding whether the first appellate court has committed error of law in reversing the finding of the trial court is concerned, it is pertinent to refer Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 which reads as under:- 20. Transfer of raiyat's rights. - (1) No transfer by a raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof, by sale, gift, mortgage, will, lease or any other contract or agreement, express or implied, shall be valid unless the right to transfer has been recorded in the record-of-rights, and then only to the extent to which such right is so recorded: Provided that a lease of raiyati land in any sub-division for the purpose of the establishment or continuance of an excise shop thereon may be validly granted or renewed by a raiyat for a period not exceeding one year, with the previous written permission of the Deputy Commissioner: Provided further that where gifts by a recorded Santhal raiyat to a sister and daughter are permissible under the Santal Law, such a raiyat may with the previous written permission of the Deputy Commissioner, validly make such a gift:( Emphasis Supplied) 17. Admittedly both the parties to the suit are Santhal and are aboriginals. So, in view of the prescription by section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 making the written permission of the Deputy Commissioner condition precedent for such a gift by the ancestors of the plaintiff to the ancestors of the defendants, in the absence of any written permission by the Deputy Commissioner, such gift claimed by the defendants cannot be a valid one. Further as has been observed by the learned first appellate court that though the defendants claimed that they are in possession of some documents regarding the Taben Jom but they could not produce any documents regarding this evidence. As already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, the defendants have admitted the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. This fact coupled with the fact that defendants failed to establish their title by way of adverse possession for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment; the only corollary is that the plaintiffs have the title over the suit land. This fact coupled with the fact that defendants failed to establish their title by way of adverse possession for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment; the only corollary is that the plaintiffs have the title over the suit land. Besides oral testimony, the Khatiyan which was proved by both the sides which is prima facie a document of possession, also supports the case of the plaintiffs. The learned first appellate court has discussed in detail the reasons why it disbelieved the oral testimony of the six witnesses examined by the defendants and this Court does not find any error in the same. 18. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that no error of law has been committed by the learned first appellate court in reversing the finding recorded by the trial court. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 19. In view of the answer to the two substantial questions of law, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed ex-parte but without cost. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be transmitted to the learned concerned courts below forthwith.