JUDGMENT : (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 04.07.2012 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Title Appeal No.10 of 2006 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the learned trial court being the Munsif, Bokaro in Title Suit No.06 of 1998 dated 07.03.2006 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff filed with a prayer for declaration of the title over the property described in Schedule 3 of the plaint and for confirmation of the possession over the same and permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the property described in Schedule 3. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.06 of 1998 in the court of Munsif, Bokaro with the aforesaid relief. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that Sudu Mahatha and his two brothers namely Teju and Banmali were recorded raiyats of Cadastral Survey Khatiyan No.23. Banmali died unmarried and Teju died issueless and Sudu Mahatha became the sole owner of the property described in Cadastral Survey Khatiyan No.23. Sudu Mahatha died leaving behind his two sons namely Satish Sharma being the plaintiff No.1 and Motilal Sharma being the proforma defendant No.4. Korfa Khatiyan was prepared in the name of two sons of Gopal Rajwar namely Sagar Rajwar and Nagar Rajwar. After the death of Sagar Rajwar, his brother Nagar Rajwar left the possession of Korfa tenancy in favour of the raiyat and thus, Sudu Mahatha came in Khas possession of the property described in Schedule- 1. The plaintiff No.1 by registered sale-deed dated 08.02.1980 sold away half of the properties of C.S. Plot Nos.1790, 1791 and 1792 to the defendant No.3. The plaintiff No.1 and proforma defendant No.4 by registered sale-deed jointly sold half of the properties bearing C.S. Plot Nos.1790, 1791 and 1792 to Gendia Rajwarin- wife of defendant No.2 and Yudhishtir Rajwar- son of defendant No.1. The plaintiff No.1 and proforma defendant No.4 by registered sale-deed jointly sold half of the properties bearing C.S. Plot Nos.1790, 1791 and 1792 to Gendia Rajwarin- wife of defendant No.2 and Yudhishtir Rajwar- son of defendant No.1. The plaintiff sold away the entire property of C.S. Plot No.2396 to one Lakhu Gorain who after purchase, sold away 0.8 acres of property out of C.S. Plot No.2396 to the plaintiffs for valuable consideration vide sale-deed dated 20.10.1989 and the same is the suit property described in Schedule 3 of the plaint. The further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is in the peaceful possession of the property. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with others and in order to lay a claim over the property of Korfa Khatiyan No.33, executed and registered a deed of indenture dated 20.01.1959 in favour of Government of Bihar for establishing a school but the Government of Bihar did not attempt to take possession over the suit land. The indenture was collusive and inoperative and illegal transaction. As the defendants attempted to create disturbance, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their joint written-statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. They denied the claim of surrender of the suit land by Nagar Rajwar to the Raiyat. The defendants claimed having full right of hereditary as well as transferable right of an occupancy raiyat. The defendants pleaded that the sale-deed executed by the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are collusive and sham transactions. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following ten issues:- (I) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (II) Have the plaintiffs cause of action to sue? (III) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? (IV) Is the suit barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act? (V) Is the suit bad for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties? (VI) Has the suit been properly valued? (VII) Are the plaintiffs entitled for a decree for declaration of title and continuous possession over the suit plots? (VIII) To what relief or reliefs are the plalintiff entitled? (IV) Is the suit barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act? (V) Is the suit bad for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties? (VI) Has the suit been properly valued? (VII) Are the plaintiffs entitled for a decree for declaration of title and continuous possession over the suit plots? (VIII) To what relief or reliefs are the plalintiff entitled? (IX) Whether the Korfa raiyat Nagar Rajwar left the possession of the suit property in favour of the raiyat Sudu Mahatha and whether Sudu Mahatha came in Khas possession of the property or reentered into possession of the suit land? (X) Is there any custom in Mauza Nawadih, where the suit land is situated, regarding the inheritance of Korfa raiyat right by the descendants of Korfa raiyat? 6. In support of their case, the plaintiff altogether examined three witnesses besides proving the documents which have been marked as Ext.1 to Ext. 5. From the side of the defendants, three witnesses have been examined however no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendants. 7. The learned trial court first took up issue No.(IX) and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the surrender or abandonment of the suit land by the Korfa Raiyat in favour of Sudu Mahatha. 8. The learned trial court next took up the issue No.(X) and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that there exists a custom in the locality regarding the inheritance of Korfa right. 9. The issue No.(V) next taken up by the learned trial court was answered by holding that the State of Bihar as well as Ujar and Susta Rajwar are necessary party and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 10. The learned trial court next took up the issue Nos.(I), (II), (III), (IV) and (VI) together and disposed of the issue No.(III) as not pressed. The learned trial court held that the suit is maintainable and the plaintiff has got valid cause of action and the suit is not barred by any provision of law and the suit is properly valued and decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 11. The learned trial court held that the suit is maintainable and the plaintiff has got valid cause of action and the suit is not barred by any provision of law and the suit is properly valued and decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 11. Lastly, the learned trial court took up the issue Nos.(VII) and (VIII) together and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed in the suit and dismissed the suit on contest. 12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.10 of 2006 in the court of Principal District Judge, Bokaro which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court being the Principal District Judge, Bokaro by the impugned judgment as already indicated above. 13. The learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and took up the issue No.(X) first and after considering the evidence in the record relied upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Debu Napit & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2010 (3) JLJR 450 wherein it was held that if there is specific Act defining right of under raiyat, customary right cannot be allowed to prevail over specific provision of Act. The learned first appellate court also relied upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sandhya Rani Devi & Others vs. Gour Chandra Panda & Others reported in 2003 (4) JLJR 737 wherein it was held that right of an under-raiyat is neither transferable nor heritable and it survives till his life and it extinguishes on the death of the under-raiyat and went on to hold that the defendants have failed to establish the custom of inheritance. On the other hand it has come in evidence that Korfa raiyats purchased the different plots under Korfa khata from the plaintiffs who are the heirs and descendants of the recorded raiyats and decided the issue No.(X) in favour of the plaintiff. 14. The learned first appellate court then took up the issue No.(IX) and after considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to establish by requisite evidence of the issue No.(IX). 15. 14. The learned first appellate court then took up the issue No.(IX) and after considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to establish by requisite evidence of the issue No.(IX). 15. Thereafter, the learned first appellate court took up issue No.(V) and came to the conclusion that without impleading the State of Bihar, the relief of declaration regarding the indenture made by the defendant in favour of the State of Bihar cannot be allowed and answered the issue No.(V) accordingly. 16. The learned first appellate court affirmed the findings of the learned trial court in respect of the issue No.(I), (II), (III), (IV) and (VI). 17. Lastly, the learned first appellate court took up issue Nos.(VII) and (VIII) and held that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the property described in Schedule 3 of the plaint and confirmation of his possession over the same and the plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the property described in Schedule 3 and thus, decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the aforesaid extent and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned first appellate court has committed an error by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court without appreciating the provision of Section 76 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act which saves the custom from the provisions of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. It is next submitted that in view of the fact that there was a custom of inheritance of Korfa right, the learned first appellate court ought not have interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court be set aside and the judgment and decre passed by the learned trial court being Munsif, Bokaro in Title Suit No.06 of 1998 be restored after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 19. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court be set aside and the judgment and decre passed by the learned trial court being Munsif, Bokaro in Title Suit No.06 of 1998 be restored after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 19. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the admitted case of the defendants that they claimed their right over the suit land on the basis of the under-raiyat rights obtained by their ancestors. The ownership of the suit land by Sudu Mahatha is admitted. The defendants took the plea of existence of a custom where the under-raiyats have right of inheritance as well. The learned first appellate court after considering the evidence in the record, has come to the conclusion that the defendants have failed to establish the custom of inheritance. Such finding of the learned first appellate court is not by excluding any admissible or by considering any inadmissible evidence. Hence, such finding of facts arrived at by the learned first appellate court cannot be termed as perverse which is a sine qua non for interfering with the finding of fact by the second appellate court in exercise of the power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding Section 76 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is concerned, true it is that Section 76 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act saves the customs from the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act but as already indicated above since the defendants have failed to establish any custom; so obviously after the death of their ancestors, the defendants do not have any right of inheritance of an under-raiyat right of their ancestors. 21. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. 22. Accordingly, this Second Appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 23. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith.