JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Praveen Akhauri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Although the appearance has been made on behalf of the private-respondents, but on repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the private-respondents. 3. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved with the judgment dated 05.08.2008 (decree signed on 14.08.2008), passed in Title Appeal No.65 of 1999 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1999 (decree signed on 29.09.1999) passed by the learned Sub-Judge at Khunti in Title Suit No.12 of 1988. 4. The plaintiff /respondents instituted the Title Suit No.12 of 1988 in the court of Sub-Judge, Khunti against the defendant/appellant and others for adjudication of the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit property and for confirmation of possession, in the alternative for recovery of possession if the plaintiffs are found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the defendants and their respective ancestors were members of Munda community being members of scheduled tribe. The suit lands described in the schedule to the plaint originally belonged to and were recorded in the joint name of Puran Prasad Munda and of Fagu Munda having one share, Samuel Munda, Boas Munda and Eliazer Munda sons of late Prem Anand Masih Munda in the cadastral survey record of right under C.S. Khata Nos.52 and 53 village Ithe, P.S. Karra, District Ranchi(now Khunti), Puran Munda died issueless and was survived by his widow namely Most. Hanna, Puran Munda had only daughters, one of whom was Marium who was married to one Johan Horo whose son is defendant in the suit. The parties to the suit and their ancestors were and are governed by thir Munda customary law under which rule of agnetic succession prevails and the females or those claiming through or under them are totally excluded from inheritance. A Munda widow is only entitled to life estate in the properties belonging to her deceased husband and on the death of the widow the property of her deceased husband reverse back to the agnate as reversionary heirs. Accordingly the suit properties were recorded in the Revisional Survey record of right in the joint names of Most. A Munda widow is only entitled to life estate in the properties belonging to her deceased husband and on the death of the widow the property of her deceased husband reverse back to the agnate as reversionary heirs. Accordingly the suit properties were recorded in the Revisional Survey record of right in the joint names of Most. Hanna and predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs under R.S.Khata No.52 and 53 of the said Village. By reason of erroneous description of the defendant’s father late Johan Horo as ghardamad in remarks column of R.S. record of right, the defendant’s father and mother Most. Mariam began raising false and unfounded claim over the suit property as a result of which Title Suit No.64 of 1937 was filed in the court of the Munsif, Ranchi, in which it was specifically held that the defendant no.1 in the suit namely Johan Horo was not the ghardamad of late Puran Prasad Munda and the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 23.3.1938. An appeal being Title Appeal 62/75 of 1938 preferred against the said judgment and decree was allowed with clear findings that after the death of parents of the defendant, the inheritance would pass to the nearest agnates i.e. the plaintiffs. The defendant’s father was not ghardamad of Puran Prasad Munda and the punches of the village never gave any share of the real property of Puran Prasad Munda and accordingly neither the defendant nor his parents have or had any interest in the suit properties. After the death of parents of the defendants in or about 1963 and 1973 respectively, the plaintiffs being the nearest agnates of Puran Prasad Munda came and continued in possession of the suit land in assertion of their own independent right. 5. The plaintiffs also applied for mutation of their name and mutation was allowed by the Circle Officer, Karra vide order dated 27.12.1974 passed in Misc. Caes No.69 of 1964-65. The appeal preferred by the defendant against the said order was allowed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi. The plaintiffs preferred revision in the court of Commissioner, Sought C.N. Division, Ranchi, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.2.1988. A proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C was started with respect to plot no.642 of khata no.52 which was converted into a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C and the same was decided in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 18.12.1976. The plaintiffs preferred revision in the court of Commissioner, Sought C.N. Division, Ranchi, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.2.1988. A proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C was started with respect to plot no.642 of khata no.52 which was converted into a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C and the same was decided in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 18.12.1976. The defendant remains interested in denying title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Thus the plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs aforementioned. 6. The defendant Nathanial Horo appeared and filed his written statement on 5.9.88 stating therein that the plaintiff’s suit is false, frivolous and vexatious as such is liable to be dismissed. Suit as framed is not maintainable. Plaintiffs have no cause of action for the suit. Suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Suit is barred by limitation, adverse possession and ouster and also barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. Shri Nirbandh Horo the younger brother of the defendant who has also half interest in the properties in the suit and who is in joint possession with the defendant is the necessary party to the suit. Suit is bad under the provision of section 139 and 258 of the C.N.T Act and Regulation I of 1969. Suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata. Samuel Munda, father of the plaintiff no.6, Boas Munda father of the plaintiff no.1 and Eliazer Munda father of the plaintiff no.3 along with Etwa Munda jointly filed Title Suit no.64 of 1937 against Johan Horo father of the defendant, Most Mariam and others for recovery of possession with respect to land of R.S.No.52 and 53 of the village Ithe P.S. Karra and for cancelling the name of Most Hanna and John Horo from the revisional survey records of right and for entering the name of plaintiffs of the said suit. Said suit was contested by the father of the defendant and the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs of that suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.1938. Father of the defendant along with Most Mariam filed Title Appeal No.62 of 75 of 1938 in the court of J.C. Ranchi which was subsequently transferred to the court of Sub Judge Ranchi for disposal. Father of the defendant along with Most Mariam filed Title Appeal No.62 of 75 of 1938 in the court of J.C. Ranchi which was subsequently transferred to the court of Sub Judge Ranchi for disposal. Learned Sub Judge vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.38 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif Ranchi. In the said suit and the appeal arising therefrom one of the issues was whether John Horo father of this defendant is the Ghardamad of Puran Prasad and is entitled to the lands in suit on the death of Puran Prasad’s widow and whether the plaintiffs’ claim is barred by limitation. The learned Sub Judge, Ranchi while deciding issue no.1 hold that John Horo father of this defendant was duly adopted as Ghardamad of Puran Prasad Munda and that he is entitled to the lands of the suit on the death of Puran Prasad’s widow. It was also held that claim of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. 7. The findings of the said appeal are binding on the plaintiffs and the instant suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. Title Suit No.12 of 1988 was instituted by the respondent/plaintiffs and the said suit was decreed by the judgment dated 31st August, 1999 and decree dated 29.09.1999 passed by Sub- Judge-I, Khunti. 9. Being aggrieved with that, the defendants have filed the Title Appeal No.65 of 1999 and by judgment dated 05.08.2008, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti has been pleased to affirm the judgment of the learned trial court. 10. Being aggrieved with that, the present second appeal has been filed. 11. At the outset, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellant no.1(c) and respondent nos.6 and 7 have died and for that a petition being I.A. No.711 of 2023 has been filed. 12. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that for the property in question there was a title suit earlier which was numbered as Title Suit No.64 of 1937 which was decreed in favour of the ancestor of the plaintiffs against which Title Appeal No.62 of 75 of 1938 was filed which was allowed in favour of the appellants and there was no second appeal filed. He submits that in that view of the matter, for the same property the present suit was barred by the principles of res-judicata and there is substantial question of law and this second appeal is fit to be admitted. He further submits that the name of the ancestor of the defendants recorded in the record of rights of revisional survey of the year 1935 in the remarks column and on this ground also the second appeal is fit to be admitted. On the ground of adverse possession this appeal may kindly be admitted. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Akhauri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have dealt both the issues and have concluded that there is no question of res-judicata and the appellants were not found in possession of the property in question and that is why the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants the adverse possession is not attracted and in that view of the matter he submits that this second appeal is not to be admitted. 14. In view of the submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned trial court dated 31.08.1999 and the learned appellate court dated 05.08.2008 and finds that on the point of res-judicata, the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court come to the conclusion that in the earlier suit, the dispute was between the predecessor in interest and thereafter the dispute arose at the legal heirs/successors of the persons who were the party in the earlier suit and in that view of the matter, the both learned courts are concurrently held that the argument of res-judicata is not attracted as the dispute has arisen between the legal heirs/successors of the parties on that ground and the new cause of action, this argument of Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants is not attracted by the Court that by cogent reason there are concurrent finding of both the learned courts. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants is not attracted by the Court that by cogent reason there are concurrent finding of both the learned courts. The possession was not found in favour of the appellants by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and in that view of the matter the ground of adverse possession is not attracted and that has been effectively answered by the learned courts. It has been also held that the father of the appellants was ghar-jamai and he was entitled to remain in the house till the life-time of his wife and after the life-time of the wife, he was not entitled. It is well settled that any person who has perfected their title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession. Thus, adverse possession is both a sword and a shield, necessity of adequate pleadings, particulars and evidence, emphasized. The appellants have failed to prove there possession itself and there is finding on that point of the learned courts which is concurrent and there is two fact finding courts which have come to that conclusion. There is no perversity in the judgment, which cannot be altered sitting in second appeal under section 100 of the C.P.C. Accordingly, Second Appeal No.215 of 2008 is dismissed. 15. The interim order dated 24.02.2020 is vacated and hence, I.A. No.1766 of 2020 filed for stay of further proceeding of Ex.Case No.2/2000 as well as I.A. No.711 of 2023 filed for substitution of appellant no.1(c) and respondent nos.6 and 7 are not to be entertained since the second appeal is found to be not admitted, and as such, both the I.As stand dismissed.