JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1996 (decree signed on 03.01.1997) passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.13 of 1990 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1990 (decree signed on 16.04.1990) passed by learned Munsiff, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Garhwa in Title Suit No.32 of 1987. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the plaintiff/appellants instituted the suit stating inter alia that as per Sonpura Raj comprising several villages including Village Kandi, was under the management of Ward and Encumbered Estate, Palamau and it was released when the last proprietor Raja Narendra Nath Sahi attained majority. It is further alleged that in the year 2023, there was abnormal flood in river Sone and entire Village Sonpura merged in the river including the houses and agricultural lands of the inhabitants of the said village and they became homeless and landless having no place to take shelter. It is further alleged that one Kail Dusadh with permission of Manager, Ward and Encumbered Estate cleared shrubs and jungle (forest) of Village Kandi and constructed a house and made 1.91 acres land cultivable and settled in the Village Kandi. The said area comprising survey Plot Nos.1 and 7, was subsequently in the year 1933-34 recognized the tenancy of Kail Dusadh by Manager of Estate issuing customary Parwana and pucca rent receipt. Thereafter, the said Estate was succeeded by the Raja Nagendra Nath Sahi, who also received/realized rent and issued rent receipts to Kail Dusadh. It is further alleged that Kail Dusadh died in the year 1951 leaving behind his sole son Karmu Dusadh who inherited the entire landed property of his father. It is further stated that plaintiff's elder brother was serving as a School Teacher of High School, Kandi ad was residing in a rented house in the said village. The plaintiff also used to visit his brother at Village Kandi. It is further stated that plaintiff's elder brother was serving as a School Teacher of High School, Kandi ad was residing in a rented house in the said village. The plaintiff also used to visit his brother at Village Kandi. It is further alleged that in the year 1951, plaintiff had gone to see his ailing elder brother, meanwhile, one Karmu Dusadh @ Karmu Singh asked for loan of Rs.200/- for conducting sharadh of his father, which was paid by the plaintiff through his brother. In lieu of the said loan amount Karmu Dusadh agreed to sell the land of Schedule 'A' to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.500/- out of which Rs.200/- was paid in advance by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff came into possession of the suit Schedule 'A' land and house. It is further alleged that the plaintiff continued his possession over Schedule 'A' land till 1964. Thereafter, Karmu Dusadh came to the plaintiff and asked him to purchase the land, accordingly a sale deed was executed by Karmu Dusadh in favour of plaintiff on 09.06.1964 after receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs.300/- in the presence of Sub- Registrar, Hussainabad. Therefore, plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the purchased land as well also he reclaimed and brought under cultivation the part land lying all around the purchased land after expanding handsome amount. The total area of land became 2.77 acres including the purchased land. It is further alleged that at the time of vesting of zamindari, Sonpur Estate did not file return of his estate for the land settled with the tenants by the Manager of the Ward and Encumbered Estate, so it was difficult to ascertain the lands of raiyats. It is further alleged that by order of Circle Officer, Manjhiaon, an Amin was appointed for measuring and demarcating the lands of raiyats of Village Kandi. Therefore, plaintiff's Schedule 'A' land was also measured and was substituted by the sub-plots of Schedule 'B' land. The difference of 0.86 acres of land was found as it was reclaimed by the plaintiff. Hence, Circle Officer ordered for opening of demand according to new plotting. Therefore, plaintiff's Schedule 'A' land was also measured and was substituted by the sub-plots of Schedule 'B' land. The difference of 0.86 acres of land was found as it was reclaimed by the plaintiff. Hence, Circle Officer ordered for opening of demand according to new plotting. It is further alleged that after some time, son of Karmu Dusadh namely Fagu started disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated between them but the possession of defendants was declared which was also confirmed in Criminal Revision No.101 of 1985 which necessitated this suit. The plaintiff has instituted this suit claiming for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit Schedule A and Schedule B property appended to the plaint. 4. On the other hand, the case of defendants is that a settlement of 1.91 acres of land in favour of Kail Dusadh is admitted who died in the year 1957. It is further stated that Karmu Dusadh never called himself as Karmu Singh nor represented as Gahlaut Chhatri. It is also denied that the defendants ever asked Rs.200/- to perform sharadh ceremony of his father from the elder brother of the plaintiff and suit land was never handed over to the plaintiff. The execution of any sale deed in favour of plaintiff by Karmu Dusadh is also denied. It is also pleaded that if the said transfer through sale deed purported to have been executed in the year 1964 may be considered to have executed, but there is no pleading that permission to sell the property was obtained from the Dy. Commissioner since the property belong to a member of Schedule Caste. In this view of the matter also, the alleged sale deed cannot be recognized under law to confer any right, title and interest to the plaintiff. The defendants' ancestors were settled with land and also reclaimed surrounding areas total measuring 2.77 acres and continuously coming into possession. Their possession was also declared by the S.D.O. in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of concocted story having no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Therefore, suit is fit to be dismissed. 5. Their possession was also declared by the S.D.O. in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of concocted story having no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Therefore, suit is fit to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the main issues Nos.(v) and (vi) settled by learned Trial Court are as under :- "(v) Did the plaintiff acquired any valid right, title and possession in respect of Schedule 'A' land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 09.06.1964 executed by Karmu Singh in favour of the plaintiff? (vi) Has the plaintiff been coming in uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 09.06.1964 and has perfected his title over the same by the law of adverse possession? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the reliefs sought for in suit?" 6. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties arrived at specific findings that the very basis of claim of the plaintiff is registered sale deed dated 09.06.1964, cannot be recognized under law as no prior permission for sale was obtained from the concerned Dy. Commissioner as per mandate of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act rather on the basis of evidence available on record title and possession of the defendants over the suit land is established. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title and possession over the suit land, hence, not entitled for any relief as claimed for, accordingly, dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court also concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. This second appeal has been preferred and admitted vide order dated 10.09.1997 on following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the deed of the plaintiff dated 09.06.1964 being prior to 1979 may be held to be valid one under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and non-consideration of this fact by the Courts below caused error of law? (ii) Even if the deed is invalid or void then also when the plaintiff could prove his possession since 1964 against the real owner then his possession can be said to be perfected by right of adverse possession? (ii) Even if the deed is invalid or void then also when the plaintiff could prove his possession since 1964 against the real owner then his possession can be said to be perfected by right of adverse possession? (iii) Leaving aside the land within the deed being void whether the Courts below committed error of law in not considering the plaintiff's title regarding Schedule-'B' land outside the land contained in sale deed dated 09.06.1964? 8. Apart from above substantial questions of law, vide order dated 22.07.2024, additional substantial question of law was also incorporated which is as under:- " Whether admittedly the sale deed marked Ext.2 having been executed by the defendant in respect of the house situated over the land and not a Raiyati land the restrictions for transfer of the Raiyat as provided for in Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 would be attracted in respect of the Ext. No.2?" 9. Learned counsel for the appellants elucidating the substantial questions of law involved in this case vehemently argued that the plaintiff has purchased through registered sale deed, the household property along with lands. It is further submitted that the restrictions on transfer imposed under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 applies over transfer of agricultural land and not the household properties. Therefore, findings recorded by both the Courts below that is sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff is hit by Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, as such, void ab initio is not tenable at all. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents refuting the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of appellants has submitted that the appellants/plaintiff at para Nos.11 and 12 of its plaint itself has admitted in specific terms about purchase of land and in his oral evidence admitted construction of a house made of straw (???). The considerable part of the land is agricultural raiyati land. The area of household is very small in nature which does not change the nature of the suit property into household property. Admittedly, the vendor of the suit property belongs to Schedule Caste and the sale deed was executed in the year 1964 and was within the ambit of provision of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 which provides restriction on transfer of agricultural land without previous permission of the Dy. Commissioner. Admittedly, the vendor of the suit property belongs to Schedule Caste and the sale deed was executed in the year 1964 and was within the ambit of provision of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 which provides restriction on transfer of agricultural land without previous permission of the Dy. Commissioner. It is further submitted that sub-Clause 3 of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 also provides: " 46. Restrictions on transfer of their right by Raiyat.– (1) …. (2) …. (3) No transfer in contravention of sub-section (1), shall be registered or shall be in any way recognised as valid by any Court, whatever in exercise, of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction." Therefore, the appellants were never found in possession of the suit property described in A and B to the plaint. They have also lost criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure up to the Revisional Court, as such, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff being devoid of merits. 11. I have gone through the judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of rival parties in the light of substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal. 12. The pith and substance of this case lies in the validity of transfer of agricultural land by a member of Schedule Caste in contravention to the provision of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act which reads as under :- " Restrictions on transfer of their right by Raiyat. 12. The pith and substance of this case lies in the validity of transfer of agricultural land by a member of Schedule Caste in contravention to the provision of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act which reads as under :- " Restrictions on transfer of their right by Raiyat. – (1) No transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof,- (a) by mortgagte or lease for any period expressed or implied which exceeds or might in any possible event exceed five years, or (b) by sale, gift or any other contract or agreement, shall be valid to any extent: Provided that a Raiyat may enter into a 'bhugut bundha' mortgage of his holding or any portion thereof for any period not exceeding seven years or if the mortgagee be a society registered or deemed to be registered under the 'Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (B&O Act VI of 1935) for any period not exceeding fifteen years:] Provided further that,- (a) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is [a member of the Scheduled Tribes] may transfer with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner his right in his holding or a portion of his holding by sale, exchange, gift or will to [another person, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes and], who is a resident within the local limits of the area of the police station within which the holding is situate; (b) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the [Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes] may transfer with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner his right in his holding or a portion of his holding by sale, exchange, gift, will or lease to another person, who is a member of the [Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, Backward Classes] and who is a resident within the local limits of the district within which the holding is situate [* * *]; (c) any occupancy-Raiyat may, transfer his right in his holding or any portion thereof to a society or bank registered or deemed to be registered under the 'Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935), or to the State Bank of India or a bank specified in column 2 of the First Schedule to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) or to a company or a corporation owned by, or in which less than fifty-one per cent of the share capital is held by the State Government or the Central Government or partly by the State Government, and partly by the Central Government, and which has been set up with a view to provide agricultural credit to cultivators; and (d) any occupancy-Raiyat, who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes or Backward classes, may, transfer his right in his holding or any portion thereof by sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or otherwise to any other person.] (2) A transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof under subsection (1) shall be binding on the landlords. (3) No transfer in contravention of sub-section (1), shall be registered or shall be in any way recognised as valid by any Court, whatever in exercise, of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction [(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Deputy Commissioner shall be a necessary party in all suits of a civil nature relating to any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties to the suits is a member of the Scheduled Tribes and the other party is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes.] (4) At any time within three years after the expiration of the period or which a Raiyat has under clause (a) of sub-section (1) transferred his right in his holding or any portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall on the application of the Raiyat put the Raiyat into possession of such holding or portion in the prescribed manner. [(4-A) (a) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application filed before him by an occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes, for annulling the transfer on the ground that the transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner to determine if the transfer has been made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1): Provided that no such application be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner unless it is filed by the occupancy- tenant within a period of twelve years from the date of transfer of his holding or any portion thereof: Provided further that before passing any order under clause (b) or clause (c) of this subsection, the Deputy Commissioner shall give the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter. (b) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that there was no contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1) in making such transfer, he shall reject the application and may award such costs to the transferee to be paid by the transferor as he may, in the circumstances of the case, deem fit. (c) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that such transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), he shall annul the transfer and eject the transferee from such holding or portion thereof, as the case may be and put the transferor in possession thereof: Provided that if the transferee has constructed any building or structure, such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall, if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the same within a period of six months from the date of the order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may allow failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such building or structure removed: Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure or building on such holding or portion thereof before the commencement of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1969 (President's Act 4 of 1969) he may, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, validate such a transfer made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), if the transferee either makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion of a holding, as the case may be, of the equivalent value, in the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor. Explanation. - In this Section "substantial structure or building" means the structure or building of the value exceeding five thousand rupees on the date of holding inquiry, but it does not include such structure or building of any value the materials of which cannot be removed without incurring substantial depreciation in its value.] (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the validity of any transfer (of otherwise invalid) of a Raiyats right in his holding or any portion thereof made bona fide before the first day of January 1908 in the Chota Nagpur Division except the district of 'Manbhum', or before the first day of Januaury 1909, in the district of 'Manbhum'. (6) In this Section [and in Section 47],- (a) "Scheduled Casted" means such castes, races or tribes as are specified in Part II of the Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; (b) "Scheduled Tribes" means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are specified in Part II of the Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950; and (c) "Backward classed" means such classes of citizens as may be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be socially and educationally backward.]" 13. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the considerable part of the suit property out of 2.77 acres is agricultural land except small piece of land as described by the plaintiff to be the household property. It is also admitted by plaintiff in his oral evidence that the house is made of straw (???), the area of the house is also not described in Ext.2 sale deed. It is also admitted that the land is used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, transfer of the suit schedule land cannot be validly effected without previous permission from the concerned Dy. Commissioner, which was admittedly not obtained in this case. There are concurrent findings of facts regarding title and possession of the defendants over the suit land rather than the plaintiff whose claim is based on the purchase through registered sale deed executed in violation of statutory restriction which has no effect under law. The substantial question of law formulated earlier is also not sustainable in view of illegal transfer of land. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the concurrent findings of the Courts below calling for any interference in this appeal. I do not find any merits in this appeal which stands dismissed . Both parties are directed to bear their own cost. 14. Pending I.As., if any, also stand dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.