JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 9 11 to 13. 2. Though, the second appeal has not been admitted as yet however, pursuant to earlier order notice was issued upon the respondents that is why Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3, 9, 11 to 13. 3. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 05.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Hazaribagh, dismissing the Title Appeal No. 16 of 2006 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2006 (decree signed on 06.09.2006) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Hazaribagh, decreeing the title Suit No. 76 of 1999. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents have instituted Title Suit No. 76 of 1999 for decree to declare the title over the suit land and confirmation of possession and if found dispossessed then a decree for recovery of possession as well as registered sale deed executed by Jitan Dom and Bindeshwari Dom in favour of the defendants with respect to schedule B land dated 12.03.1977 and for declaration of illegal false and invalid, mutation proceeding and issuance of rent receipt in favour of the defendants by the Anchal Adhikari to be declared illegal. The cost of the suit was also prayed. On contest the Sub-Judge-II, Hazaribagh has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the registered deed of sale executed on 12.03.1977 is illegal and void. Mutation proceeding and issuance of rent receipts in favour of the defendants is also declared illegal. Possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was confirmed. However there was no order as to cost and thus judgment was passed on 23.08.2006 which was allowed. Aggrieved with the said judgment, the defendants/appellants filed Title Appeal No. 16 of 2006 and vide judgment dated 25.09.2010 the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed. Aggrieved with that the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants. 5. Aggrieved with the said judgment, the defendants/appellants filed Title Appeal No. 16 of 2006 and vide judgment dated 25.09.2010 the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed. Aggrieved with that the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants. 5. According to the plaint as disclosed in the judgment of learned courts the case of the plaintiffs/appellants in nutshell is that the plaintiffs are members of schedule caste and are also descendants of the recorded tenant late Ghutra Dom son of Makula Dom. It has been stated that Khata no. 32 and 33 of the village Badam, P.S. Barakagaon, District Hazaribag consists of several plots and an area of 1.21 acre is recorded in the name of Ghutra Dom. The said Ghutra Dom constructed his residential house on plot no. 1072 and 1088 of khata no. 32. The descendants of the said Ghutra Dom are living in the said house. After vesting recorded tenant and some of the plaintiffs paid rent to the ex-land lord and thereafter they paid rent to the state government for the suit land. It has been again stated that genealogy given in schedule “A” of the plaint will show the relationship between the plaintiffs and Ghutra Dom which is as follows: Ghutra Dom had tow sons Jitan Dom and Bindeshwari Dom. All the plaintiffs are the descendants of said Jitan Dom and Bindeshwar Dom. Ghutra Dom died in the year 1959 while Jitan and Bideshwari Dom died in the year, 1975. The defendants without any right, title and interest illegally and unlawfully demolished the residential house of the plaintiffs and started making illegal construction on the suit land for which criminal case was initiated and the superintendent of police is also taking action in the said case in accordance with law. Defendants are claiming the suit land through forged and fabricated registered deed of sale dated 13.04.1977 and because Jitan and Bideshwari died in the year, 1975 hence, question of execution of registered deed of sale in the year 1977 does not arise. For the said sale deed no permission was taken from the Deputy Commissioner according to the provisions under section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The Anchaladhikari Barkagaon illegally mutated the names of the defendants and issued rent receipts in their favour. 6. For the said sale deed no permission was taken from the Deputy Commissioner according to the provisions under section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The Anchaladhikari Barkagaon illegally mutated the names of the defendants and issued rent receipts in their favour. 6. On the contrary the defendants have stated in their written statement that the plaintiffs are not the descendants of Ghutra Dom. It has been stated on behalf of the defendants that Ghutra Dom died issueless and Jitan Dom and Bindeshwari Dom are the sons of Mahwa Dom who is full brother of Ghutra Dom. Plaintiffs in the instant suit are the sons of Jitan and Bindeshwari. It has been again stated that Jitan and Bindeshwari for their legal necessity executed registered sale deed on 12.03.1977 in favour of the defendants and thereafter the defendants are in possession of the suit land. Again it has been stated that plaintiffs never reside over the suit land while these defendants constructed a house as well as boundary wall in the suit plots which have been mentioned in the plaint. After purchasing the suit land names of the defendants have been mutated in the sharit of the government and they are paying rent for the same. Further more it has been stated that defendants are cultivating upon some of the plots of the suit land. So far death of Bindeshwari Dom and Jitan Dom is concerned the plaintiffs have mentioned wrong date of death in their plaint while both Jitan and Bindeshwari were employees of Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. Jitan Dom and retired from service on 30.09.1982 while Bindeshwari died on 08.06.1984 during his service period. Plaintiffs have also given wrong genealogy in their plaint. At last it has been prayed that because defendants are the real owner of the suit land hence suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. The plaintiffs have no cause of action and the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. 7. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that both the courts have failed to consider that in the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession onus is upon the plaintiffs to prove title and the plaintiffs having failed to prove the same by cogent evidences, the suit filed by the plaintiffs could not have been decreed on absolutely irrelevant consideration of the materials on record. He further submits that the learned courts have not considered that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is beyond the statutory period of limitation and has entertained the suit which was not required to be entertained. On these grounds, he submits that there is substantial question of law and this second appeal may be admitted. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 9, 11 to 13 submits that the Full Bench has already held and admittedly section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act has not been taken care of and if such thing is allowed to be happened by way of mala-fide and fraudulent way the tribal’s land can be transferred to anybody. 9. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the appellate court and finds that the learned trial court while deciding the suit has framed five issues. Issue No. IV is with regard to whether the registered deed of sale executed in favour of the defendants by Jitan Dom and Bideshwari Dom in the year, 1977 in respect of the suit land has legal force in the eye of law or not. While deciding Issue No. III and IV, learned trial court has considered the proviso of Section 46(1) of the C.N.T. Act and found that sale deed has been executed on 12.03.1977. In the decision of (1996) 2 BLJR 1116 the High Court has analyzed the provisions of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act in detail which was taken care of the learned trial court. The learned court has taken care of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in (1996) 2 BLJR 1116 wherein it has been held that decision in Budhani Mahatain’s case is not a good law and in that case it has been held that the learned Judges put a very narrow construction of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. According to the High Court Article 19(1) (f) cannot be extended to members of Schedule Castes. It is meant to protect only members of scheduled tribes. This interpretation is wholly erroneous. According to the High Court Article 19(1) (f) cannot be extended to members of Schedule Castes. It is meant to protect only members of scheduled tribes. This interpretation is wholly erroneous. Article 19(1) (f) under sub clauses (d), (e) and (f) provide nothing in sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the said clauses shall effect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes or prevents the state from making any law imposing reasonable restriction on the exercise of any of the rights, conferred by the said sub-clause either in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interest of any schedule tribe and considering that provision as well as judgment of the High Court the learned trial court has held that the sale deed was void ab initio. 10. The learned court has discussed and taken into consideration the evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants and thereafter given decree of judgment. 11. The learned appellate court has considered and re-examined the documents and came to the conclusion that the admitted fact of both the parties that originally suit land belonged to Ghutra Dom and he is having title and possession over the suit land from earlier and his name was recorded in record of right (khatiyan). It was also admitted fact that the Jitan Dom and Bindeshwari Dom after death of Ghutra Dom came in possession of suit land as legal heirs and successors of Ghutra Dom having title over the suit land. It is further admitted case of the parties that Plaintiffs/respondents are legal heirs and successors of Jitan Dom and Bindeshwari Dom. The plaintiffs/respondents are member of schedule caste and appellants/defendants are not member of schedule caste. It is also an admitted fact that sale deed dated 12.03.1977 executed in favour of the defendants/appellants no. 1 is in existence and no sanction was obtained from Deputy Commissioner to transfer the suit property through aforesaid registered sale deed and thereafter considering the evidences, the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. 12. In view of the above facts the court finds that the learned trial court has dealt in detail about the customary laws of the tribals. 12. In view of the above facts the court finds that the learned trial court has dealt in detail about the customary laws of the tribals. It is well settled law that section 46 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act provides the way for transfer of the land of tribal and schedule tribe and permission of Deputy Commissioner is condition precedent to transfer of such land to the other schedule caste and other community and Full Bench of this Court has held which has been discussed by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court. There are concurrent findings of the two facts finding courts and no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. There is no perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court as well as appellate court and in absence of perversity, sitting under section 100 of the C.P.C. the High Court is not required to admit this second appeal in absence of any substantial question of law and accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. Pending, I.A. if any, stands disposed of.