JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shobhakar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been preferred being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2024 and 21.08.2024 respectively passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Simdega in Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019, whereby, he has been pleased to affirm the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 and 12.12.2018 respectively passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ist, Simdega passed in Original Suit No.07 of 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said title suit was instituted by the appellant for right, title and interest, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.11.2018, against which, Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019 was preferred and the said civil appeal was further dismissed vide judgment dated 06.08.2024. He further submits that both the learned courts have wrongly decided the issue of res judicata against the appellant herein and in view of that, there is law point involved in the present second appeal and, as such, this second appeal may kindly be admitted on such law points. 4. It transpires from the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court that the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the learned courts was that the parties are by caste Chick Baraik, member of Schedule Tribe governed by customary law in the matter of inheritance, Succession, partition, adoption etc. The suit land is situated in village Gotra, P.S.+ District- Simdega under Khata No. 34 total Plot 39 area 17.40 acres of land and suit land situated in village Konmenjra P.S. T. Tangar, District Simdega under Khewat No.10 Khata No.241, Plot No. 2886/2861/3556 and 2817 total area 4.55 acres and both the suit lands originally recorded in the name of Ghumru Chick and Bhullu Chick both sons of late Ahlad Chick in Revisional Survey record of right as Kaimi raiyati land particularly described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint. The further case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the suit land situated in village Gotra, P.S. Simdega District Simdega bearing Khata No. 226, Plot No. 3427,3428,3533 total area 1.10 acres is the self-acquired property of Bhullu Chick and the sons of Bhullu Chick sold two plots out of the above three plots total area 1.03 acres bearing Plot No. 3427 measuring area 0.56 acres and plot No. 3428 measuring area 0.47 acres and now only 0.07 acres of plot No. 3533 remains in Khata No. 226 more fully described in Schedule-C. The further case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the recorded tenant namely Ghumru Chick and Bhullu Chick during their life time they held, possessed, peacefully cultivated and enjoyed the suit property described in Schedule-A as the rightful owner and thereafter Ghumru Chick died issueless, then entire share of Ghumru Chick automatically got devolved on Bhullu Chick who thereafter Bhullu Chick came in exclusive possession of the entire property of the Schedule-A,B and C and thereafter Bhullu Chick Baraik died leaving behind his three sons namely Chhedi Chick, Gaura Bhagat and Gauri Bhagat. After death of their father Bhullu Chick they came in exclusive possession of the land in question. Chhedi Chick son of Bhullu Chik had no issue as such after approval of lawful consent from the family members Chhedi Chick and his wife decided to adopt a son and in this regard a village Panchayati was held in the village in presence of Mukhiya and other members of the village Gotra and in presence of Panchayati Chhedi Chick and his wife adopted the plaintiff as their legal son which was also duly consented by the plaintiff as biological father and mother. All rites, rituals, and custom of adoption were performed by Chhedi Chik and his wife Bhudan Baraik in the year 1954 and after that adopted plaintiff become part and partial of adoptive father and acquires legal status of son for the purpose of inheritance and successor and also used to cultivate the land of Chhedi Chick and was in peaceful possession over the same. After adoption, the plaintiff serves his father and mother for rest of their life and when they died, plaintiff performed all rites and rituals at the time of his adoptive father and mother. After adoption, the plaintiff serves his father and mother for rest of their life and when they died, plaintiff performed all rites and rituals at the time of his adoptive father and mother. It was further case that brother of Chhedi Chick namely Gaura Bhagat and Gauri Bhagat peacefully cultivated and enjoyed the land in question and then Gaura Bhagat died leaving behind him his wife Etwari Devi (Defendant No. 6) and four sons namely Shankar Bhagat, Sanjay Bhagat, Balram Bhagat and Bajrang Bhagat and a daughter namely Nira Devi (defendant No.1,2,3,4 & 5) Gauri Bhagat also died leaving behind his wife Munia Devi (defendant No.7) and three sons namely Rajesh Baraik, Sanjay Baraik (defendant No.10) and Bijay Baraik (defendant No.13) and two daughters namely Geeta Kumari (defendant No.11) and Poonam Kumari (defendant No.12). One of the sons of Gauri Bhagat namely Rajesh Baraik also died leaving behind his wife Sukanti Devi (defendant No.8) and one daughter Anupriya Baraik (defendant No.9). After death of recorded tenant plaintiff and defendants as the legal heirs and successors are now in joint possession of the land in question. It was further case that defendant No.3, 4, 5 & 6 filed the partition suit No. 8/05 before the Sub Judge-I, Simdega and in the said partition suit they did not implead the present plaintiff as a party in that case and has fraudulently obtained the preliminary decree in the said partition suit no. 8/05 and when plaintiff came to know about partition suit no. 8/05 dated 07.03.2015 then defendant tried to sell and disposed of the share of the plaintiff and when plaintiff learnt that a preliminary decree has been obtained by the defendant then he immediately moved before the learned court of Sub Judge-I, Simdega and filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 r/w section 151 of C.P.C. and prayed to implead him as defendant in the partition suit no. 8/05 and Misc. Case No. 4/13 and further prayed to grant a proper opportunity of hearing before final adjudication of this case but the plaintiff prayer was rejected. It is also stated that in the Partition Suit No. 08/05/ Misc. Case No. 04/13 final decree has been made on 19.05.17 there upon signed on 08.06.15 without impleading the plaintiff as party in the said proceeding therefore a judgment and decree is not biding upon the present plaintiff. It is also stated that in the Partition Suit No. 08/05/ Misc. Case No. 04/13 final decree has been made on 19.05.17 there upon signed on 08.06.15 without impleading the plaintiff as party in the said proceeding therefore a judgment and decree is not biding upon the present plaintiff. It was reiterated that plaintiff was adopted by Chhedi Chik and his wife Bhudan Baraik with the consent and approval of the family members and subsequently the deed of adoption was registered in the year-1993 vide deed No. IV-1, Book IV Volume- 1, Page No. 01-04 dated 30.01.1993. It is settled principal of law that an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child for their adoptive parents for all purpose with effect from the date of adoption. The defendants are fraudulently trying to disposed of the plaintiff including his share which cannot be permitted to do so in the eye of law. After the death of recorded tenant and father of plaintiff and defendant they jointly inherited and succeeded the suit property in joint but the defendants were cunningly and fraudulently trying to side line the plaintiff and by filing the partition suit No. 8/05 before the court of Sub Judge- I, Simdega by not impleading the plaintiff as the party in this case and have fraudulently obtained the preliminary decree in their favour. Further one of the sons of recorded tenant namely Gauri Bhagat had earlier filed a partition suit No. 8/98 but eventually the said partition suit got dismissed on 18.09.1998. There was never any partition of the suit land by metes and bond either orally or documentary or through the process of the court in between the plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff no longer feels convenient to remain joint and as such plaintiff requested the defendants for amicable partition, although the defendant agreed for partition but they are avoiding on one pretext to another and now it has come in the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendants are trying to sell and disposed of the property including the share of the plaintiff, hence it was necessitated to file the suit. The share of the plaintiff and defendants are 1/3 shares. The share of the plaintiff and defendants are 1/3 shares. It was further case of the plaintiff that he is the member of schedule tribes and as such in view of amendment made in Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969 and order 1 Rule 3 of C.P.C. the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega had been impleaded as defendant No. 15 as statutory party. The cause of action arose for the above suit on various dates and finally on 07.03.2015 when defendants tried to sell and disposed of the share of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff learnt that defendants had filed the Partition Suit no. 1/05 before Sub Judge-I, Simdega by not impleading him as a party in this case and has fraudulently obtained judgment and preliminary decree on 31.08.2006 and final decree on 29.05.2017 signed on 08.06.2017 and the defendants with the help of land brokers trying to disposed the suit land by side line the plaintiff. It was prayed that a preliminary decree be passed for partition and separating of 1/3 share of the plaintiff in the suit land detailed in schedule-A, B and C and thereafter a survey knowing pleader commissioner be appointed to carve out the separate takhta of the share of the plaintiff and cost of the suit may be awarded and for any other relief/reliefs to which the plaintiff is found entitled. 5. Defendant no.2 appeared in the suit and contested the suit. The defendants claiming themselves to the legal heirs of Bhullu Chik and coming from the family of Gaura Bhagat and Gauri Bhagat filed their W.S. in different sets. Defendant Nos. 3, 5 & 6 filed the W.S. and the same was supported by defendant Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14 by their W.S. During pendency of the suit defendant No. 1 died and his name was deleted. The contesting defendants in their W.S. challenging the suit on the ground of maintainability, limitation, adverse possession, ouster, waiver, acquiescence and estoppel has raise the plea that there is no unity of title and possession for the lands of suit with plaintiff as he does not come and below to the family of defendants. The contesting defendants in their W.S. challenging the suit on the ground of maintainability, limitation, adverse possession, ouster, waiver, acquiescence and estoppel has raise the plea that there is no unity of title and possession for the lands of suit with plaintiff as he does not come and below to the family of defendants. Plea of res judicata has also been taken by pleading that there was a Partition Suit No. 8/05 between the descendant of the recorded tenant and in the final decree proceeding of that decree plaintiff had filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. before the court of Sub Judge-I, Simdega claiming himself to be an adopted son of Chhedi Chik and that Misc. Case was rejected vide order dated 20.01.2016 and as such having binding effect of that order the present suit for partition is barred by the principle of res judicata. Further the plea has been taken that plaintiff had preferred Title (Civil Appeal) No. 4/15 in the court of Principal District Judge, Simdega which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.09.2015. This fact has also been brought on record that against the order passed by D.C.L.R., Simdega in Mutation Appeal No. 01/01, Title Suit No. 04/2001 was filed by the plaintiff in the court of Munsif Simdega but the same was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 and surprisingly the same plea has been raised in the suit and further on the ground of res judicata the suit is fit to be dismissed. In the W.S., the claim of the plaintiff being the adopted son of Chhedi Chik has strongly been denied specially on the grounds that plaintiff is a tribe whereas heirs of the recorded tenant, the defendant No. 2 to 14 are by caste Chik being Hindu Chhedi Chik, who are not entitled any tribe as son by adoption and on that ground also prayer was made to dismiss the suit. 6. The learned trial court has framed eight issues to decide the suit. Issue no.(iv) was with regard to whether the suit is barred by principle of res- judicata? 6. The learned trial court has framed eight issues to decide the suit. Issue no.(iv) was with regard to whether the suit is barred by principle of res- judicata? and while considering the said issue, the learned trial court has found that the plea was taken by the defendants against the appellant/ plaintiff of the principle of res-judicata and the appellant/plaintiff had earlier filed Title Suit No.04/2001 before the court of Munsif, Simdega and the judgment passed in the said Title Suit No.04/2001 was marked as Ext.-E in the case. The decree passed in the said Title Suit No.04/2001 is marked as Ext.-E/a and Ext.-4 from the side of defendant. It was further found out that Title Suit No.04/2001 was instituted by the plaintiff himself, namely, Zakarias Hansda against Gauri Bhagat, who is the husband of defendant no.6 and father of defendant nos. 9, 10 and 11 and Sanjay Bhagat and Shankar Bhagat, who are defendants in the said suit are also sons of Gaura Bhagat and it is further found out that Gauri Bhagat and Gaura Bhagat were brothers of Chhedi Chick and in that suit, the plaintiff/appellant has brought the issue of adoption which was decided by that court against the plaintiff. The learned court has further found that till the date of the judgment, the appellant/plaintiff had not brought any evidence before the court that he has preferred any appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Munsif, Simdega in Title Suit No.04/2001 and it was not challenged in the appeal and it has attained finality and that has already been decided that Zakarias Hansda claimed himself as adopted son of Jyoti Anthony, which was rejected by that court. The learned trial court has further examined Exts.-A and B and has found from the certified copy of judgment of Partition Suit No.08/2005 dated 31.08.2006 and certified copy of final decree of Partition Suit No.08/2005 that one partition suit was filed by the sons of Late Gaura Bhagat, Bajrang Bhagat, Balram Bhagat, Etwari Devi, Nira Devi in which sons of Gaura Bhagat and Gauri Bhagat and their successors were made defendants in that partition proceeding, decree for partition was passed and against that decree, one Misc. Case No.04/2013 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff- Zakarias Hansda @ Jyoti Anthony under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying therein to grant his application and allot him 1/6 share in the suit land which was rejected by the court of learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Simdega vide judgment dated 20.01.2016, which was against the judgment of Partition Suit No.08/2005 and Title Appeal No.04/2015 was preferred by the plaintiff, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.09.2015. The learned trial court has also found out that in the last 14 years, the appellant/ plaintiff has filed several suit, Misc. Case and appeal against the same partition of their ancestors to claim their right on the basis of deed of adoption, which was rejected by earlier courts. The learned court has further found that repeatedly the same issue was raised before the earlier courts and in the present suit also on the basis of Godpatra which appears to come under the purview of res judicata and that issue was already decided against the appellant/plaintiff in Title Suit No.04/2001. In view of that, the learned trial court has decided the said issue no. iv against the appellant/plaintiff and held that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. 7. Aggrieved with that judgment, Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019 was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff which was further dismissed vide judgment dated 06.08.2024. The learned first appellate court has further appreciated all the aspects including the evidences led by the parties i.e. oral and documentary evidence and further formulated the point to decide the appeal at paragraph 9 of the judgment. Point no.(A) was with regard to prove the appellant/plaintiff as valid adopted son of the recorded tenant Chhedi Chick, point no.(B) was with regard to the principle of res judicata and point no.(C) was with regard to the fact that whether the other issues have been properly decided or not. The learned first appellate court has found that the appellant/plaintiff has stated that he was adopted by Chhedi Chick as he has got no issue and he has inherited the property of Chhedi Chick by way of such adoption. To prove the case, the appellant/plaintiff has relied upon the certified copy of Godpatra which was executed by Chhedi Anthony in his favour on 30.01.1993 wherein the adoption made in the year 1954 was mentioned. To prove the case, the appellant/plaintiff has relied upon the certified copy of Godpatra which was executed by Chhedi Anthony in his favour on 30.01.1993 wherein the adoption made in the year 1954 was mentioned. In the deed the caste of plaintiff is mentioned as Munda. In the light of nature of document has found that it is not deed of adoption rather it is a kind of memorandum of a story of alleged adoption in the year 1954. The appellant/plaintiff has not shown himself as adopted rather he was shown in the name of his father Late Emal Hansda caste Munda resident of Village- Lamati P.S.-Dhurwadih, District-Sundagarh (Odisha) and at present of Village- Gotra Nawatoli, P.S.- Simdega, District- Gumla. In view of that the learned court has further found that it has been only created in the form of memorandum for the alleged adoption in the year 1954 and the father’s name of the plaintiff is not disclosed as Chhedi Chick in the said adoption deed. The learned first appellate court has further found that the appellant/plaintiff himself has made coming to his biological parents at Simdega ever doubtful vide his statement in para-49 which is contrary to the adoption in the year, 1954. The learned appellate court has further found that no exact date on which such adoption was performed is mentioned in the deed. No witness in whose presence such adoption was performed has been examined as none of the witness in their examination in chief has stated that in their presence any such adoption was made by convening a panchayti in the village. The learned first appellate court has also found that in fact there is no evidence on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff to support the actual story of adoption in the year, 1954 and only on the basis of memorandum of adoption executed in their 1993, the claim of the appellant/plaintiff of being the adoptive son of Chhedi Chick was made which was doubtful. The learned first appellate court has further found that no person from the village has been examined on the issue in question. The law with regard to the adoption has further been discussed by the learned first appellate court and in view of that the point has been decided against the appellant/plaintiff by the learned first appellate court. The learned first appellate court has further found that no person from the village has been examined on the issue in question. The law with regard to the adoption has further been discussed by the learned first appellate court and in view of that the point has been decided against the appellant/plaintiff by the learned first appellate court. The learned first appellate court has further appreciated as has been discussed by the learned trial court with regard to Title Suti No. 04/2001 and in view of that discussion made therein about the Exhibits, the learned court has found that the point of res-judicata is against the appellant/plaintiff and thereafter, decided the further points and has been pleased to dismiss the appeal. 8. In view of the above facts, the Court finds that both the learned courts are consistent on the issue on which this second appeal has been argued for admission on the substantial question of law. There is no perversity in the finding of both the learned courts and both the learned courts have given concurrent finding. In view of that, no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. Further the High Court in not required to re-appreciate the facts due to the fact that the learned courts are consistent on the facts and, as such, no case of admitting the present second appeal on the substantial question of law is made out. 9. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 10. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.