JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2024 (decree signed on 06.09.2024) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.15 of 2012, whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Daltonganj, Palamau in Title Suit No.1 of 1994, the judgment passed on 31.01.2012 and decree dated 18.02.2012 decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that both the learned court have failed to prove by the cogent evidence to dispel the burden of casting their right, title and interest over the suit land. According to him, the law point involved is with regard to Exhibit-3, 3/A and 3/B which were the documents of revenue authorities and these documents have not been correctly interpreted by both the learned courts. On this ground, he submits that this second appeal may kindly be admitted. 4. Title Suit No.1 of 1994 was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the suit land is occupancy raiyati land of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs have only right, title and interest thereon. The suit land is the land of khata no.1, plot nos.43, 45, 46, 49, 50 total area 8.80 acres situated at Village Doki, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau and the other prayers. 5. From the judgment of the learned first appellate court it transpires that the case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiffs/ respondents land of khata no.1, plot no.43, 45,46, 49, 50 total area 8.80 acres situated in village Doki, P.S Chainpur, District Palamau is the suit land and plaintiffs are sons of Thakuri Mahto and plaintiffs and their father was settled raiyat of village Doki and they reclaimed Gairmanzuruwa Malik land in village Doki and remained in cultivating possession thereon. It is stated that Thakuri Mahto applied for settlement and after proper istehar and inquiry, the Revenue 0fficer and staffs raiyati settlement was made in favour of Thakuri Mahto as follows: Settlement Case No. Parwana Granted on Plot No. Area in acres VIII/76 of 1958-59 20.10.1959 43 0.26 45 0.41 VIII/77 of 1958-59 19.11.1959 49/1 1.37 49/2 2.70 VIII/78 of 1958-59 19.11.1959 49/3 1.48 50 1.69 46 0.89 Vide above Settlement case the land became settled Land of Thakuri Mahto, plaintiffs Rajeshwar Pd. Yadav and on the basis of settlement regular demand was opened in their names in Register II of State of Bihar. It is also stated that Thakuri Mahto died in year 1984 and the suit land consisting plot no., 43 and 46 devolved upon his four sons and his brother Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav through inheritance and Later on Rajeshwar Pd. Yadav had sold his share to plaintiff no.1 vide registered sale deed no. 6711 dated 19-06-1992 and in this way plaintiff no. 1 possessed half share in the entire suit land and plaintiff no. 2 and 3 got 1 /4 share and defendants have no right, title and possession over the suit land. It is also stated that defendant and late Jagdish Tiwari was not settled raiyat of village, therefore, there is no question of owning any land in village Doki. It is stated that Ramkishun Tiwari, who was brother of late Jagdish Tiwari, was Karamchari and who in course of time became Circle Inspector and some maneuvering and manipulation was made at the instance of said Ramkishun Tiwari and name of defendant no.1 and late Jagdish Tiwari was entered in Register II fraudulently without any order of competent authority. It is also case of plaintiff that for avoiding any future complication for parrell demand, plaintiffs have approached the Revenue Authority for cancellation of illegal demand running in the name of defendant no.1 and late Jagdish Tiwari and Misc. Case no. 128/84- 85 was registered before Additional Collector, Palamau and on the basis of collusive and false report of C.0, Chainpur, Additional Collector, Vide order dated 27-12- 1988 without appreciating the real facts, refused to cancel the parrel demand the matter is adjudicated by Civil Court relating to right, title and interest of plaintiffs, then the plaintiff have filed the suit. 6. 6. The case of the appellant/defendants before the learned first appellate court was that village Doki was the part of Ranka Estate and the said Ranka Estate settled the land of khata no. 1 plot no. 38,41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50 and 21 area 16.80 acres in favour of Jagdish Tiwari and Rajeshwar Tiwari of village Nenuwa and Settlement/Hukumnama Parwana was granted on 7 Sawan 1357 Fasli long before the date of vesting by Rani Gunjeshwari Devi w/o Raja Bahadur Giriwar Narain Singh of Ranka Estate, which was granted to said Rani for her expenses and annual rent beside cess was fixed at Rs.10/- and thus the land became raiyati land of Jagdish Tiwari and Rajeshwar Tiwari. It is also case of defendant that no reclamation having been done by plaintiffs or the land was validly ever settled in their favour or any istehar was published or inquiry was held. There was no regular demand in the name of plaintiffs and they were never in possession over the suit land. It is also case of defendant that plaintiffs have filed Misc. Case before Addl. Collector Palamau which was failed. It is also stated that plaintiffs had made allegation against the then C.0 Chainpur and Addl. Collector without any basis and lastly prayed to dismiss the suit of plaintiff. 7. The learned trial court has framed seven issues to decide the said suit and the issue no.6 was with regard to, whether the plaintiffs are having right, title and interest over the suit land or not? 8. The learned trial court has appreciated the oral evidences of PWs and DWs as well as the exhibits marked on behalf of both the sides. While appreciating the issues no.6, which was the main issue, the learned court has appreciated the fact that the learned counsel for the defendants has argued and contended that undisputedly the land in question is situated at Village Doki and before vesting it under the Ranka Estate it was also found to be not in dispute that several villages including the village Doki was granted to Smt. Rani Gangeshwari Devi for her expenses. Rani Ganjeshwari Devi on 7 th Sawan 1357 Fasli granted the Parwana regarding the 16.80 acres of land from different plots of khata no.1 which also cover the suit land in favour of Jagdish Tiwari and Rajeshwar Tiwari. Rani Ganjeshwari Devi on 7 th Sawan 1357 Fasli granted the Parwana regarding the 16.80 acres of land from different plots of khata no.1 which also cover the suit land in favour of Jagdish Tiwari and Rajeshwar Tiwari. The settlement was brought on record as Exhibit-B. It was also contended that the proprietor also received the rent and also granted the rent receipt in token of payment of rent. The defendants also brought on record the rent receipt issued by ex-land lord in the name of Jagdish Tiwari and others i.e. Exhibit-C and Exhibit-C/1. Thus, the argument of the defendants have been taken into consideration in paragraph no.12 by the learned trial court. He has also further appreciated the Exhibit-E addressed to the Circle Officer which was in the form of complaint. In paragraph no.13, learned trial court has further appreciated the fact that vide settlement case no.77 of 1958- 59, 78 of 1958-59, the plaintiffs have been granted Hukumnama and demand having been opened in their names and since then are paying rent regularly to the Estate and it was the case of the plaintiffs that full brother of Jagdish Tiwari namely Ram Kishun Tiwari and Circle Inspector and Kanoongo under his influence were adopting fraudulent devices and they falsely opened the demand in the name of Rajeshwar Tiwari and Jagdish Tiwari. The plaintiffs have brought on record three Parwana /Hukumnama, Exhitib-3 and Exhitib-3/B. The Demand Register was also opened on the basis of the aforesaid three settlement cases as, Exhitib-4(a), Exhitib-4(b) and Exhitib-4(c). Return filed by the ex-land lord, Exhitib-5 was also brought by the plaintiffs showing that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land of Village Doki at the time of vesting and they have applied for fixation of rent. The learned court has found that the defendants have not brought on record anything contrary to that which can prove the documents produced by the plaintiffs to be forged and fabricated. So far the finding of the Circle Officer and the Additional Collector regarding the fact that the Deputy Commissioner namely T. Bhagat was never posted at Palamau was a surprising fact before the learned trial court. The learned court has found that it was the duty of the Additional Collector to investigate into the matter and then only observe the same. The learned court has found that it was the duty of the Additional Collector to investigate into the matter and then only observe the same. The learned court has further appreciated Clause-B of Sub section 8 of Section 3 of CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT with regard to Hukumnana/ Parwana and found that it is written order/ certificate regarding settlement of land to the settllee. So far the contention of the defendants about c.c. of settlement record is concerned, the learned court has appreciated the fact that once the Hukumnama was brought on record and in pursuance thereof, the settlee has been recommended raiyat of government and demand was also running in their names, there is nothing on record to doubt the authenticity of the plaintiffs documents. The learned trial court has further appreciated that defendants themselves submitted that the demand for an area of 16.80 acre of land of khata no.1 of village-Doki was running and rent up to 1983-84 is fully paid and on the basis of the said rent, the receipts and C.C. of Register-II, the C.O. passed the order on 29-11-1984 that to continue the demand as was running earlier and Halka Karamchari was directed to issue correction slip accordingly. But the learned court has found that on perusal of Exts. A to A/3, transpires that the rent in arrear have been realized. The learned court has stated that how defendants themselves admit that rent up to 1983-84 have been paid which is supported by Exts. F, F/l and G. The learned court has further found that the defendants have not been able to explain how all the four rent receipts Exts. A to A/3 issued only in the year, 1983-84 and in view of that the learned court has found that somewhere fraud have been played. With regard to 16.80 acres of land, the defendants have claimed that it was the Gairmazaruwa Malik land of khata no. 1 comprising of different plot from ex-land lord through Hukumnama dated 7 Sawan 1357 Fasli. On perusal of Ext.B (Hukumnama), the learned court has found that it was dated 1 Magh 1345 Fasli corresponding to the English Calendar year 1938, however, in the written statement and in examination in chief, the defendant deposed that they have been granted settlement on 7 Sawan 1357 Fasali. On perusal of Ext.B (Hukumnama), the learned court has found that it was dated 1 Magh 1345 Fasli corresponding to the English Calendar year 1938, however, in the written statement and in examination in chief, the defendant deposed that they have been granted settlement on 7 Sawan 1357 Fasali. The learned court has further appreciated the fact that the defendant no.1 while depositing as D.W. 1 in the year, 2011, stated on oath that on that day he was about 65 years and the learned court has found that in view of that, the said to be born in the year, 1946. The learned court has further appreciated the fact about the statement made in the deposition and if it is said to be correct, i.e. 7 Sawan 1357 Fasali (corresponding year, 1950), then the defendant no. 1 the settlee was about 4 years old and would have been in the lap of his mother and in view of that, the learned court has found as to how it is possible the land was settled in the name of a four year old infant. The learned court has further appreciated the rent receipt issued by the ex-land-lord Exts.C and C/1 which was the rent paid in the year 1357 Fasali, 1361 and 1362, it means, English Calendar year, 1956. When the State was vested in the year, 1952 and possession was taken by the Government, the learned court has found that in view of that how rent has been paid to the ex-land-lord in the year, 1956. So far as the proprietor of Ranka Estate for the lands of village-Doki, is concerned, the Ext.5. has been brought on record by the plaintiffs and in the return the defendants are nowhere have been shown as settlee/raiyat in possession of the land in question, rather plaintiffs are shown to be in possession of suit land in the remarks column whereas it was clearly mentioned that plaintiffs have applied for settlement. In view of that the learned court has disapproved the case of the appellants/defendants. Considering all these aspects, the learned trial court has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. 9. In view of that the learned court has disapproved the case of the appellants/defendants. Considering all these aspects, the learned trial court has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. 9. Aggrieved with the judgment of the learned trial court, the appellants herein preferred Title Appeal No.15 of 2012 which was decided by the judgment dated 24.8.2024 and the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal. The learned first appellate court has further appreciated the facts as well as the documentary and oral evidence led on behalf of both the sides and in paragraph no.11, the learned court has further made the points to determine the said appeal. The learned first appellate court has appreciated the Exhibit-3 series and Exhibit-4 series which have been supported by Exhibit-5 series which is Return. The learned first appellate court has found that Exhibit-5 has been mentioned as return by the ex-land lord by the learned trial court, however, it was found to be register of Gairmajuruwa Malik of Village Doki thana no.70 and in the different column the land was said to be in possession of raiyat and it was mentioned as sl.no.43 and 45 the name of the raiyat and possessors of land and includes the name of Thakuri Mahto, Badri Yadav, Bhola Prasad Yadav, Kameshwar Yadav and Rajeshwar Yadav. The learned court has further found that so far plot nos.43, 45, 46, 48 and 50 were being cultivated since long and it was mentions-“ Mal Bandhane ke Waste Darkhast Hai” and the learned court has found that in view of Exhibit-5 proves the fact that the father of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs have cultivated those lands and they had filed application for settlement of land which was pending and later on the land vested in State but their applications remained pending and the State Government settled vide Parwana issued by T. Bhagat on 12.10.1958 (Ext.3,3/A and 3/B) and that was followed by opening of Register II on the basis of their Parwana (Ext.4, 4/a, 4/b, 4/c and 4/d) and consequence thereof has issued rent receipt (Exhibits 1 to 1/f) and in view of that the learned first appellate court has found that the plaintiffs have successfully proved the same by way of pleadings and evidence the land was Gairmajuruwa Malik which was reclaimed by them and they had filed application before the ex-landlord for fixation of rent and settlement and in the meantime the notification section 3(1) of B.L.R. ACT the Estate vested in the year 1952 but since it was intermediary land, the same was saved from vesting and Thakuri Mahto and his sons applied for settlement of land which was settled by T.Bhagat and thereafter Register II was opened in their names and they got the rent receipt but they found that double demand was running so on their instance Misc. Case No.128/1984-85 was filed which gave rise to the filing of the suit. 10. In this background, considering the deciding of the civil proceedings and it is proved by way of preponderance of probabilities. The learned court has found that the appellant/defendants have not been able to prove their case and the plaintiffs/respondents had successfully proved that the suit land was settled by way of Parwana (Exhibit-3 series) on the basis of reclamation and their possession and thereafter they paid rent which show that they have valid right, title and interest over the suit property. In view of that, the learned first appellate court has been pleased to dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated 24.08.2024 and there are concurrent findings of two learned courts and no perversity has been shown by the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellants so far as the facts are concerned. The law points tried to be raised in the instant second appeal has already been discussed by the learned trial court and the Court finds that there is no perversity so far as that is concerned. As such, no substantial question is made out to admit the instant second appeal. 11. Hence, the instant Second Appeal being S.A. No.164 of 2024 is dismissed. 12. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.