JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dated 13.07.2020 passed by learned A.J.C.-XVI, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal on contest. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.130 of 2005 in the court of Munsif, Ranchi with a prayer for declaration of right, title, interest and to declare that the sale-deed having been in the teeth of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act as no sanction has been obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, is void. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land was recorded in the R. S. Record of Rights in the name of Paruwa Oraon-son of Dhundha Oraon. Paruwa Oraon died leaving behind his only son namely Chamu Oraon. The plaintiffs are the descendants of the said Chamu Oraon. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs inherited the suit land. As the defendant No.1 with the help of muscle man obstructed in ploughing of the suit land, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the court of S.D.M., Ranchi vide Misc. Case No.42 of 2004 in which proceeding the defendant No.1 claimed that the suit land was purchased by them in the year 1984 from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that the sale-deed in favour of the defendants has been obtained by practicing fraud and by way of impersonation, have created the documents in order to grab the suit land. 4. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 in their written-statement besides challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds pleaded that the plaintiffs have jointly filed application under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act for obtaining permission to sell the suit land in favour of the father of the defendants namely Mangu Oraon and after obtaining permission, the plaintiffs have executed the sale-deed. After such purchase, the land was mutated in the name of father of the defendants. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following eight issues:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether any valid cause of action for the suit? After such purchase, the land was mutated in the name of father of the defendants. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following eight issues:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether any valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (iv) Whether there is a bar of non-joinder of necessary party? (v) Whether the suit is barred by provision of Section 258 of C.N.T. Act? (vi) Whether the suit land has been transferred legally and by valid sale deed executed on 24.04.1984 in favour of the father of the defendants/respondents no. 1 to 6? (vii) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? (viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other reliefs? 6. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined three witnesses and proved the Khatiyan of Khata No.24 which has been marked as Ext.1 and Draft Record of Rights which has been marked X for identification. From the side of the defendants besides seven witnesses, documents were also filed which have been marked as Ext. A to F/3. 7. The learned trial court first took up issue Nos.(vi) and (vii) together and after considering the materials available in the record, answered the issue No.(vi) in favour of the plaintiffs in the affirmative while answered the issue No.(vii) against the plaintiffs. 8. The learned trial court next took up issue No.(v) and after considering the evidence in the record and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Parsuram Mahto & Others vs. Mohan Lal Mahto reported in 1996 (1) BLJR 571 (Pat) wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court held that a suit for title and possession can never be a bar under Section 258 of the C.N.T. Act even if there were proceedings between the parties; answered the issue in the negative. 9. The learned trial court next took up issue No.(iv), (viii), (ii) in that seriatim and answered the issues against the plaintiffs. 10. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue No.(iii) and held that since the cause of action for filing the suit arose in the year 1984 but the suit was filed in the year 2005, hence, the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. 11. 10. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue No.(iii) and held that since the cause of action for filing the suit arose in the year 1984 but the suit was filed in the year 2005, hence, the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No.34 of 2019 in the court Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment as already indicated above. 12. The learned first appellate on the basis of the materials available in the record and submissions made before it, made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and considered that the plaintiffs never took any effort during the entire proceeding before the court to prove their claim regarding fraudulent application for Ext. B by examining the questioned documents through an expert nor have they taken any effort to challenge the order passed in Permission Case No.M-509R8(ii)/82-83 under Section 46 of C.N.T Act before the appropriate revenue authority; as per the requirement of law nor have they sought any relief for cancellation of the sale-deed nor the plaintiffs could give any explanation about non-filing of any rent receipts for the suit land in support of his claim. Rather the plaintiffs brought on record, the Record of Rights of the Revisional Survey Settlement Operation in support of his case, showing the entries over the suit land in the name of their grandfather-Paruwa Oraon and went on to hold that in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Parsuram Mahto & Others vs. Mohan Lal Mahto (supra) came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge their burden of establishing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land rather the evidence put forth by the plaintiffs were rebutted by the defendants through their documents, the genuineness of which was not found doubtful and inferred from the evidence in the record that execution of the sale-deed marked Ext. B, the Permission Case No.M-509R8(ii)/82-83 under Section 46 of C.N.T Act marked Ext. E and the mutation case of the suit land Ext-D, were going on in full knowledge of the plaintiffs in the beginning. B, the Permission Case No.M-509R8(ii)/82-83 under Section 46 of C.N.T Act marked Ext. E and the mutation case of the suit land Ext-D, were going on in full knowledge of the plaintiffs in the beginning. Thus, the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and held that the suit is barred by law of limitation and dismissed the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the courts below have committed perversity by shifting onus upon the plaintiffs to prove that they have not executed Ext. B even though the defendant was relying upon Ext. B and it is his document. It is next submitted that both the courts ought not have found fault with the plaintiff for not sending the document to the expert for his opinion. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 14. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the burden of proving a fact is upon the person who asserts the same as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smriti Debbarma (Dead) through Legal representative vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma & Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 9 paragraph-35 of which reads as under:- 35. The burden of proof to establish a title in the present case lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief. This is mandated in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden on proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail. This rule may not be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. The plaintiff could have succeeded in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ property if she had discharged the burden to prove the title to the Schedule ‘A’ property which squarely falls on her. This would be the true effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it follows that the plaintiff should have satisfied and discharged the burden under the provisions of the Evidence Act, failing which the suit would be liable to be dismissed. Thus, the impugned judgment by the High Court had rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the High Court that the suit should be dismissed. We clarify that we have not interfered or set aside any observations of the High Court in re the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, or defendants' claim etc. Notably, M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited is not a party to the present proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. Now, the case of the defendant is that the ancestor of the defendant purchased the land from the plaintiff and their ancestor vide Ext. B which is a registered sale-deed. Since the plaintiff pleaded that the said sale-deed is a void one and has been obtained by practicing fraud, hence, obviously the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish the same by cogent evidence. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the courts below have not committed any perversity by observing that it is the plaintiff who has to prove its case including that the sale-deed marked Ext. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the courts below have not committed any perversity by observing that it is the plaintiff who has to prove its case including that the sale-deed marked Ext. B has not been duly executed by the executants of the sale deed, who were also the vendors of the said sale-deed. It is needless to mention that the plaintiffs have miserably failed in establishing the same. 16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that judgment and decree passed by both the courts below cannot be termed as perverse warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. This Court further finds that the finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below is not by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration any irrelevant material nor the finding so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. 19. Accordingly, this Second Appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 20. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith.