JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 09.04.1996 and the decree following thereupon signed on 25.05.1996, passed in Title Appeal No. 111 of 1993, by the VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissing the said appeal and thereby confirming the judgment dated 16.09.1993 and the decree signed on 25.09.1993, passed in Title Suit No. 143 of 1989, by the learned Sub Judge-IIIrd, Ranchi. 3. The suit was instituted by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of his title and confirmation of his possession over the suit property, appended in Schedule-A of the plaint. Further prayer was made to refrain the defendants by way of permanent injunction from creating obstruction and nuisance by use of force in his cultivation work and other reliefs, for which, the appellant/plaintiff found to be entitled. 4. The said suit was decided by the learned trial court by judgment dated 16.09.1993 and considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, the same was dismissed without cost. Aggrieved by that, the appellant/plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 111 of 1993, which was decided by the judgment dated 09.04.1996, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned appellate court. Aggrieved by that, the present second appeal has been filed. 5. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit stating therein that the suit land has boon recorded as Majhias land and the same was given by the ex-landlord to Smt. Savitri Kumari Devi, wife of Thakur Jogendra Nath Sahdeo as Sindutari gift and since then she has been coming as owner of the suit land. The said Savitri Devi gifted the suit property along with other land to her daughter Mangleshwari Kumari Devi by registered deed dated 27th September, 1962 and the said deed of gift was accepted by Thakur Jogendra Nath Sahdeo, father of Mangleshwari Devi on behalf of his daughter. The said Savitri Devi gifted the suit property along with other land to her daughter Mangleshwari Kumari Devi by registered deed dated 27th September, 1962 and the said deed of gift was accepted by Thakur Jogendra Nath Sahdeo, father of Mangleshwari Devi on behalf of his daughter. Subsequently, the plaintiff has purchased the suit land from Smt. Mangleshwari Kumari Devi by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 19th August, 1985 for consideration of Rs 9000/-and since after purchase the plaintiff is coming in possession of the suit land, got his name mutated in the office of Circle officer Namkum and is regularly paying rent to the State. The defendants have got no concerned with the suit land nor they have any title over the same still they have formed illegal attitude with sole object to harass the members of schedule tribes with object to leave the village and that they will be forced since the plaintiff is not acting on the advice of defendant, the defendants are bent upon to harass him and they created obstruction in cultivation of the plaintiff although the plaintiff reported to police but the police sent report for starting proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C. The defendants have got no faith in law and are bent upon to prevent the plaintiff from cultivating the suit land, hence the plaintiff has got no option but to file the suit for the reliefs. 6. The defendants have filed three sets of written statement and the sum and substance of their case is that the suit is not maintainable, the suit is barred by law of limitation, principles of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and adverse possession. According to them the suit land has not been recorded as Majhias, rather the same has been recorded as Bakast Malik in the R.S. record of right in the name of Thakurain Ram Kumari, with right to receive rent under khata no. 1 of village Khelgaon, which comes under khewat no. 3 which is Mundari Khutkatti of the defendants since before R.S. and the defendants are continuing in peaceful possession over the suit land. 1 of village Khelgaon, which comes under khewat no. 3 which is Mundari Khutkatti of the defendants since before R.S. and the defendants are continuing in peaceful possession over the suit land. Their further case is that the allegation of the plaintiff that the suit land was given in Sindutari gift to wife of Thakur Jogendra Nath Sahdeo is not correct and the said Savitri Devi was never in possession at any material time, rather the defendants and their predecessors were all along in peaceful possession of the suit land to the knowledge of all concerned including the plaintiff. They have also denied the gift in favour of Mangleshwari Devi and they pleaded that the same is collusive and it does not confirm any title in favour of donee Mangleshwri Devi and she was not put in possession of the suit land even for a single day. They have also pleaded that the sale deed executed by Mangleshwari to plaintiff and the plaintiff has acquired no title because Mangleshwari has got no right to execute the sale deed with respect to the suit land and the mutation of plaintiffs name is illegal. Their case is that the suit land was originally recorded as Masna Choura and was recorded land of C.S. khata no. 5 which stand recorded in the name of fore father of defendant as Mundari khutkatti, but the plaintiff with the help of ex-landlord wanted to grab the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiffs have created fake and collusive document. 7. By order dated 02.12.1997, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, plaintiff has to prove title only and onus is upon defendant to prove acquisition of title by adverse possession? (2) Whether the sale deed dated 19.08.1985 (Exhibit-2) and the gift deed (Exhibit-3) dated 27.09.1962, executed by Savitri Devi and Exhibits 1 series, Exhibits 2, 4, 7 and 8 to Smt. Mangeshwar Devi have been misconstrued by the court below? (3) Whether in a registered deed of gift the Sub-Registrar can under the law can act as an attesting witness unless as laid down in the case reported in AIR 1922 Patna 402? (3) Whether in a registered deed of gift the Sub-Registrar can under the law can act as an attesting witness unless as laid down in the case reported in AIR 1922 Patna 402? (4) Whether both the courts below have failed to take into consideration that by remaining in possession from 1962 to 1985, the vender of the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiffs have acquired title also by adverse possession? (5) Whether in view of the R.S. entry the lands in dispute is a Bakast land, the finding of the learned courts below that the lands are Mundari Khutkatti can be sustained in law? 8. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has not considered Exhibit-2, which is the sale deed dated 19.08.1985 in its right perspective. He submits that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has misconstrued the entries made in the khatiyan and khewat, filed by the appellant, which was Exhibits 5/a and 5/b respectively. He further submits that learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has failed to consider the registered deed of sale that Mangaleshwari Devi acquired her right and title over the suit land on 27.09.1962, which was proved by the plaintiff-appellant in accordance with law and marked as an Exhibit, it was incumbent upon the learned court to examine Smt. Mangaleshwari Devi and in absence of that, decided the case against the well settled principle of law. He further submits that at least there are documents to suggest that there are preponderance of evidence regarding execution of the suit lands by Savitri Devi in Sindurtari gift, which has not been considered in its right perspective. He further submits that the learned courts have committed an error of record in law by of misconstruction of documents, i.e. Exhibit-1 series, Exhibit-2, Exhibit-4, Exhibit-7, Exhibit-8 and other exhibits, which were filed on behalf of the appellant plaintiff. He took the court to the relevant paras of the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court judgments and submits that the law points may kindly be answered in favour of the appellants. He further submits that the adverse possession is also in favour of the appellants. He further submits that the onus lies upon the defendants to prove the possession. He further submits that the adverse possession is also in favour of the appellants. He further submits that the onus lies upon the defendants to prove the possession. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the substantial questions of law may also be answered in favour of the appellants. 9. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has rightly considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and dismissed the suit, which was affirmed by the learned appellate court. He submits that the learned trial court has framed the issue with regard to any Sindutari Gift to Savitri Devi and whether the gift deed dated 27.09.1962 in favour of Mangleshwari Kumari Devi is legal and valid and whether the plaintiff has acquired valid right and title by virtue of sale deed dated 19.08.1985 and whether the suit lands are Mundari Khutkatti lands? He submits that these issues have been decided by the learned trial court and thereafter has dismissed the suit. He further submits that learned appellate court has framed three points to decide the appeal and while dismissing the appeal and considering the evidence, the learned appellate court has come to the finding that it cannot be said that Savitri Devi has inherited the suit property from Ram Kukari Devi, the original khewatdar nor there is such case pleaded by the plaintiff. He further submits that the plaintiff, who is PW-5 in para-37 of his evidence has admitted that Savitri Devi and Mangleshwari Devi are alive, but the plaintiff has not examined them, who would have been the best person to say as to from whom Savitri Devi has acquired the suit land. In that view of the matter, he submits that there is no illegality in the judgments of learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. 10. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the lower court records and the judgments of learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. Admittedly, the learned trial court has framed the issue No. 3 with regard to whether there was any Sindotari Gift to Savitri Devi and whether the gift deed dated 27.09.1962 in favour of Mangleshwari Devi is legal and valid? Admittedly, the learned trial court has framed the issue No. 3 with regard to whether there was any Sindotari Gift to Savitri Devi and whether the gift deed dated 27.09.1962 in favour of Mangleshwari Devi is legal and valid? issue No. 4 was with regard to whether the plaintiff has acquired valid right and tile by virtue of sale deed dated 19.08.1985 and issue No. 5 was with regard to whether the suit lands are Mundari Khutkatti lands? 11. While deciding issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the learned trial court has considered the sale deed dated 19.08.1985 [Exhibit-2]. It was contended by the plaintiff that the suit lands were acquired by Sindotri Gift by Savitri Kumari Devi, however, it was not mentioned that who gave Savitri Devi the suit land in Sindotri Gift. There is no document to show that Savitri Devi was given the suit land along with other lands in Sindotri Gift. Exhibit-5/B has been filed, by the plaintiff, in which, there was no entry made that Savitri Devi was given the suit land in Sindotri Gift by the ex-landlord, however, the entry suggest the name of Thakurain Ram Kumari W/o Thakur Jagar Nath Shah Deo and the nature of right is ‘Mahaltari’. Learned trial court held that if there was any Sindotri Gift in favour of Savitri Devi, there would have been any entry in this khewat of the Cadastral Survey and instead of the name of Ram Kumari, the name of Savitri Kumar would have entered. Considering all these aspects, the learned trial court has dismissed the suit. 12. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, title appeal was filed before the learned appellate court and the learned appellate court has considered the said title appeal and has framed three points for deciding the appeal. While deciding the point No. 2 with regard to right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, on the basis of alleged Sindutari Gift deed and on the basis of the sale deed executed by Mangaleshwari Devi, the learned appellate court has considered the khatiyan of khata No. 1 (Exhibit-5/a), which was recorded in the R.S. record of right as Bakast in the name of Ram Kukari Devi and she has been mentioned as the person, who is entitled to receive rent. The suit land admittedly appertains to khewat No. 3 and the plaintiff has filed certified copy of Khetwat No. 3 (Exhibit-5/b) from which it appears that Ram Kumari Devi wife of Thakur Jagarnath Sahdeo has been shown as khewatdar of khewat No. 3 under Thakur Udai Nath Sahdeo, khewatdar of khewat No. 2. The plaintiff, who is PW-7 in para-37 of his evidence has admitted that Savitri and Mangaleshwari are alive, but the plaintiff has not examined them who would have been the best person to say as to from whom Savitri Devi has acquired the suit land. There is no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to show that even for a single day Savitri Devi or Mangleshwari Devi was in the possession over the suit land and from the plaint also, the learned appellate court found that there is no specific plea as to from whom Sindotari gift was given to Thakurain Savitri and in which year. No chit of paper was filed to prove this fact that Thakurain Savitri Devi was the donee of the suit land from the ex-landlord. For the first time the deed of gift has been created by Thakurain Savitri Devi in favour of Mangleshwari Devi, which has been filed and has been marked as Exhibit-3. The husband of Savitri Devi is landlord of Basar Garh and, therefore, it would have been very easy for the plaintiff to call for such return filed by ex-landlord and bring the same on record to prove his assertion about Sindurtari gift. Considering all these aspect, the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment of the learned trial court. 13. The argument of Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants with regard to adverse possession is concerned, it is well settled that the plea of adverse possession is not in consistence with the plea of right of possession on the basis of the sale deed and this aspect of the matter has been well settled in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh (Dead) through LRs. vs. Ram Singh (Dead) through LRs. (2000) 3 SCC 708 . 14. Thus, the point of adverse possession, which has been argued by Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is not helping the appellants. vs. Ram Singh (Dead) through LRs. (2000) 3 SCC 708 . 14. Thus, the point of adverse possession, which has been argued by Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is not helping the appellants. Moreover, the weakness of the defendants witness cannot be a ground of reversing the findings of two fact findings courts. Onus lies upon the person, who is claiming the possession in light of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. The court finds that there are concurrent findings of two courts and the said findings of both the courts are upon appreciation of the entire evidence available on record and therefore unless concurrent findings recorded by the courts were found to be perverse, same was not required to be interfered by the High Court in exercise of powers sitting under Section 100 of the CPC. 16. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this appeal is dismissed. 17. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the concerned court forthwith.