JUDGMENT : (SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.) Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendants. 2. The present Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of affirmation dated 23.12.2023 and decree signed on 06.01.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.32 of 2018 by learned District Judge-III, Jamtara, whereby the said appeal was dismissed upholding the judgment dated 28.4.2018 and decree signed on 16.05.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamtara in Title Suit No.45 of 2012 whereby the said suit was dismissed. 3. The case of the plaintiff/respondents is that the plaintiffs are Hindus and are governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Plots no. 264, 85, 84, 56, 252, 263, 92, 57 and 253 of Mouja Babudih appertaining to AKJ no. 28 were recorded in the names of Haripad Char and Gour Char, the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs. The genealogical table given by the plaintiffs in para 3 of the plaint discloses the fact that Bistu Char died leaving behind his son Haripad Char (RT) who died leaving behind his three sons namely Kalipad, Renupad and Santosh (P-1). Kalipad died leaving behind Lakhi, Bipad, Madhusudan and Brindaban who are plaintiffs no. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Renupad died leaving behind Sudha, Patubala and Budhu who are plaintiffs no. 7, 8 and 9. Dinanath Char died leaving behind Gour Char (RT) and Gour Char died leaving behind Lalmohan Char who died leaving behind Tulsi Char who is plaintiff no.2. The suit properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint are Jamabandi plots and the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession thereof. The plaintiffs are residents of village Khamarbad and the plots are in Babudih Mouja. So taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs the defendants/appellants who are strong men, captured the plots of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed Raiyati Eviction Case no. 23 of 2006-07 in the court of Ld. S.D.O., Jamtara on 31.01.2007 which is still pending. Since the defendants have grabbed the lands of the plaintiffs without any valid right, title and interest so they are liable to be evicted. The cause of action arose on 31.01.2007. The plaintiffs have filed Raiyati Eviction Case no. 23 of 2006-07 in the court of Ld. S.D.O., Jamtara on 31.01.2007 which is still pending. Since the defendants have grabbed the lands of the plaintiffs without any valid right, title and interest so they are liable to be evicted. The cause of action arose on 31.01.2007. So the plaintiffs filed this suit in the court, after having no way out, with a prayer to declare their right, title and interest over the suit properties and thereafter to direct the defendants to be evicted from the land and hence this suit. The Plaintiff has sought following reliefs in the suit:- (i) A declaration of plaintiffs right, title and interest and eviction of the defendants from the suit lands. (ii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants to go upon the suit lands. (iii) Temporary injuction in mandatory from restraining the defendants to go upon the suit lands till disposal of the suit. (iv) Alternatively delivery of possession through process of Court by eviciting the defendants from the suit lands (v) Cost of the suit. (vi) Any other relief or reliefs to which plaintiffs may deem entitled to in law and equity. 4. The case of the defendants/appellants is that this suit is not maintainable because there is no cause of action and it is barred by limitation also. The answering defendants have stated that this suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties because the daughters of Renupada, Kalipada and Lalmohan have not been made parties. This Court has got no jurisdiction to try this suit because the value of the suit properties is less than Rs. 500/- and in order to attract the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court the plaintiffs have wrongly inserted the existence of Palas trees on plot no. 264. The plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest were never in possession of the suit properties because the real fact is that in McPherson settlement Murli Mahato, the great grandfather of the defendants was the recorded tenant but in Gantzer’s settlement Haripad Char and Gour Char were wrongly mentioned as recorded tenants. Even after Gantzer’s settlement Murli Mahato did not give up his possession and since then the defendants or their predecessors in interest have been continuously coming in possession of the suit properties. Even after Gantzer’s settlement Murli Mahato did not give up his possession and since then the defendants or their predecessors in interest have been continuously coming in possession of the suit properties. These answering defendants have also submitted that the possession of the defendants over the suit properties is known to everybody including the plaintiff. In 1970 the plaintiffs tried to dispossess the defendants from the suit properties but the plaintiffs could not succeed and in this way the forefathers of the defendants including the present defendants have been coming in possession of the suit properties since last one hundred years so the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the suit was instituted for declaration of plaintiffs right, title and interest and for eviction of the defendants from the suit land and he submits that the suit was decided in favour of the plaintiffs/defendants and against that the appellants herein has preferred Civil Appeal which was further dismissed affirming the order. He submits that the learned trial court and the learned appellate court has not correctly appreciated the points with regard to the adverse possession and in view of that this is the substantial question of law to admit the Second Appeal. On this ground he submits that this Second Appeal may kindly be admitted on the substantial question of law. 6. He further submits that one proceeding was already initiated under Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, by the plaintiffs and during pendency of that proceeding, the present suit has been filed which is also bad in law. 7. The learned trial court has formulated five issues to decide the suit. 8. Issue no.1 is with regard to maintainability of the suit. The issue no.3 is with regard to whether the plaintiffs are the heirs of the recorded tenants namely Haripad Char and Gour Char or not and the issue no.4 was whether the defendants have acquired right, title and interest over the suit property by adverse possession or not? 9. 8. Issue no.1 is with regard to maintainability of the suit. The issue no.3 is with regard to whether the plaintiffs are the heirs of the recorded tenants namely Haripad Char and Gour Char or not and the issue no.4 was whether the defendants have acquired right, title and interest over the suit property by adverse possession or not? 9. While deciding the issue no.1 the learned trial court has found that raiyati eviction case has been filed in the court of learned S.D.O, Jamtara which decides the matter of eviction in the capacity of Revenue Court and working in the capacity of Revenue Court and it has got no power to decide the right, title and interest of the parties and in view of that, the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that so far continuance of raiyati eviction case and continuance of suit for declaration of right, title and interest cannot be branded as two parallel proceedings for the same cause of action and in view of that, it was decided that the suit is not maintainable and the learned court has given the cogent reason and in view of that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is not accepted by the Court with regard to the pendency of earlier proceeding in the court of learned S.D.O. which is on different footing. 10. The issue nos.3 and 4 have been taken simultaneously by the learned trial court. 11. The learned court has considered that the defendant nos.5 and 6 who have adopted the W/S filed by the deceased father stated that the McPherson settlement the suit properties were recorded in the name of Murli Mahto the great grand father of the defendants and since their predecessors in interest have been in possession of the suit properties to the knowledge of all the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs including the present plaintiffs also. The defendants have admitted the claim of the plaintiffs that Gantzer’s Settlement was the last survey settlement. Haripad Char and Gour Char became the recorded tenants of the suit properties and even after the predecessor in interest of the defendants continued to exercise their possession over the suit properties and presently the defendants are in possession of the suit properties. The defendants have admitted the claim of the plaintiffs that Gantzer’s Settlement was the last survey settlement. Haripad Char and Gour Char became the recorded tenants of the suit properties and even after the predecessor in interest of the defendants continued to exercise their possession over the suit properties and presently the defendants are in possession of the suit properties. The learned court has found that the documents which have been filed by the defendants in order to justify the claim over the suit properties are not connected in any way directly with the suit properties and so from the reply of the defendants and the evidences of the defendants the learned trial court found that the defendants are claiming the land on the basis of adverse possession and however, they have not given the specific period, that is, the date, month and the year on which the predecessor in interest acquired the possession over the suit properties and considering all these aspects as well as the oral evidences, the learned trial court as come to that finding. 12. The learned trial court has further formulated the points at paragraph 16 of the judgment with regard to the raiyati eviction case being Raiyati Eviction Case No.23 of 2006-07 pending before the learned S.D.O. and the learned appellate court has considered that aspect in paragraph no.18 of the said judgment. The learned appellate court has found that the appellants/ defendants were taking mutually destructive pleas in order to defeat their alleged rights. At one hand, they have claimed themselves to be successor of the recorded tenants of McPherson Settlement and on the other hand they were claiming possession over the suit properties on the basis of adverse possession. In this regard the learned court has considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar , reported in (2014) 11 SCC 316 . The learned appellate court has further found that the appellant/defendants have not been able to prove their connection with the suit properties whereas the plaintiff/ respondents by way of Exhibit -1 which is parcha of Mouza Babudih pertaining of AKJ No.28 have been successful in proving the fact that Haripad Char and Gour Char have been shown as recorded tenants therein. The learned appellate court has found force in the argument of the plaintiff/ respondents that way back in the year 1957 while deciding the conflict between Mcpherson Settlement and Gantzer’s Settlement the Hon’ble Patna High Court has decided in the case of Madn Rai and Anr. V. Khelu Rai and Others , reported in BLJR 1957 Patna 461 wherein it has been held that on the basis of McPherson Settlement and its reverse revision which was taken up in 1992 in the form of Ganatzer’s Settlement and on the basis of that Gantzer’s Survey the settlement must prevail over the original settlement. 13. Discussing all these aspects the learned appellate court has also found that adverse possession has not been proved. It is well settled that on the basis of two contradictory stand the adverse possession cannot be a ground of taking right, title and interest of the suit properties and a reference may be made to the case of Narasamma and Others v. A.Krishna P.P (Dead) Through legal representative reported in (2020) 15 SCC 218 . 14. In view of the above, both the learned courts have given a concurrent finding on the issues in question and there is no perversity in the finding of the learned courts and it is well settled that if there is no error on the facts by the two learned courts, the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the facts in Second Appeal. What has been discussed hereinabove, it is crystal clear that both the learned courts have given a concurrent finding and there is no illegality. The Court finds that there is no substantial question of laws involved to admit the instant Second Appeal. 15. Accordingly, S.A. No.40 of 2024 is dismissed. 16. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.