JUDGMENT : (SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.) Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the sole appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 31.07.2024 and the Decree signed on 12.08.2024, passed by the learned District Judge-III, Dhanbad, in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2023, whereby the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and upheld the Judgment dated 30.11.2022 and the decree signed on 05.12.2022, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Dhanbad, in Original Suit No. 503 of 2020. 3. Original Suit No. 503 of 2020 was instituted by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration that the defendants are in possession over the schedule premises under the status of gratuitous licensees and in permissive possession granted by the plaintiff and for the recovery of possession by ejecting the defendant from the schedule premises and handing over the vacant possession to the plaintiff and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with free enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff and from interfering with plaintiff possession over the suit premises and also restraining them from doing acts which is prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff. 4. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that the Raiyati lands situated within P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad, Mouza Dhanbad (Mouza No.51), appertaining to Khata No. 51, bearing Plot Nos. 899, 1179, 1200, 1518, 1560, 1558, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1622, 1664, 1745, 1978, 1990, 2032, 2082, 2085, 2095, 2100, 2104, 2642, 2787, 2789 & 2832 measuring total area 5.26 acres, originally owned and belonged to Dulal Sao and Ramu Sao sons of Late Dipan Sao, and accordingly stood recorded in their names in the Cadastral Survey Settlement Record of Rights. while possessing the same Dulal Sao and Ramu Sao got partitioned their aforesaid lands recorded under Khata No. 51 of Mouza Dhanbad, including other lands vide Registered Deed of Partition bearing no. 3494 in the year 1945 and as per terms of the said Deed of Partition the lands bearing Khata No. 51 of Mouza Dhanbad including other lands allotted to Dulal Sao, and whereas the lands situated in Mouza Hirapur, Khata no. 88 allotted to Ramu Sao and accordingly both the brothers came in peaceful separate possession of their respective allotted lands. 88 allotted to Ramu Sao and accordingly both the brothers came in peaceful separate possession of their respective allotted lands. While Dulal Sao in peaceful separate possession he sold and transferred his allotted share under Khata No. 51 of Mouza Dhanbad to Rafaquat Hussain Son of Farhad Hussain vide Regd. Sale Deed No. 7470 dated 08.11.1945 with valuable consideration and puts the vendee in peaceful possession thereof. Thus Rafaquat Hussain came in actual peaceful possession of the lands purchased vide Regd. Sale Deed No. 7470 dated 08.11.1945, and while possessing the same Rafaquat Hussain entered into a Sale Agreement dated 11.02.1948 with the Plaintiff, Banke Bihari Singh, and after receipt of the entire consideration money put the Plaintiff in peaceful possession thereof, and agreed to execute and register a proper Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff as and when he would be asked to do so, in the meanwhile Rafaquat Hussain died, and as such no Sale Deed could be executed and registered in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the land covered under the Sale Agreement dated 11.02.1948, however the Plaintiff was/is continued to remain in peaceful possession . 5. It is averred that legal heirs and successors of late Ramu Sao illegally started claiming over the lands recorded under Khata No. 51 of Mouza Dhanbad, resulting that disputes & differences arose in regard to the possession of the land, and a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. being M.P. Case No. 1089/1985 initiated at the instance of the Darbari Sao & Ors. which was ultimately dropped vide order 26.11.1985. Thereafter plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 89 of 1985 against Darbari Sao & Ors. which has been decreed vide Judgment & Decree dated 11.11.1986 passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Ist Court, Dhanbad. In this suit the right, title & interest of the Plaintiff over the suit land has been declared, and the Plaintiff has been continuing in peaceful possession thereof, got his name mutated in the sherista of State Govt. and is paying Rent regularly and obtaining Rent Receipts there from. Further it is asserted that, plaintiff constructed several rooms (servant quarters) over the portion of the land bearing Plot Nos. 2082, 1978 & 2100 and the remaining portion were/are used as Bari Land cultivating seasonal vegetables through hired laborers. 6. and is paying Rent regularly and obtaining Rent Receipts there from. Further it is asserted that, plaintiff constructed several rooms (servant quarters) over the portion of the land bearing Plot Nos. 2082, 1978 & 2100 and the remaining portion were/are used as Bari Land cultivating seasonal vegetables through hired laborers. 6. It is further averred that the Plaintiff also got his name entered in the Dhanbad Municipality in respect of houses premises constructed over the lands as mentioned herein above and is paying holding Tax etc. to the Dhanbad Municipality regularly and obtaining Municipal Rent Receipts there from. It is further pleaded that plaintiff gifted the lands bearing Plot No. 1978 measuring area 3 decimals, out of total area 26 decimals, appertaining to Khata No. 51 of Mouza Dhanbad (Mouza No. 51) to Pandit Markandeya Mishra S/o. Late Jaikaran Mishra vide Regd. Gift Deed No. 3338 dated 31.03.1990 and put the Donee in peaceful possession thereof. It is asserted that Plaintiff engaged the Defendants to cultivate the seasonal vegetables over the lands 1978, 1990, 2082, 2085, 2095 & 2100 and allowed/permitted them to live in the servant quarters constructed over the suit land. 7. The Defendants-respondents case is that they were the occupants of the aforesaid servant quarters described in the Schedule of the Plaint including the Bari land under the status of gratuitous licensees in as much as they were accorded permission to use and occupy those servants quarters for the purpose of services rendered to the Plaintiff. However in course of time the Defendants continued to possess aforementioned licensed servant quarters, including the Bari land, but later on by sheer avarice they started staking claim over the same and resulting that several cases and proceedings were/are started, and ultimately Plaintiff got them relieved from the Bari land to cultivate seasonal vegetables thereon, and also asked to deliver vacant possession of the servant quarters immediately. It is further pleaded that in spite of relieving the Defendants from cultivating the Bari land, they illegally and forcibly tried to interfere in peaceful possession of the Plaintiff, consequently a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. being M.P. Case No. 97 of 2012 and further a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. being M.P. Case No. 86 of 2012 started against the Defendants. The learned S.D.M., Dhanbad vide its order dated 16.03.2012 passed in M. P. Case No. 97/2012 made the Rule absolute against the Second Party/Defendants, against which the Defendants preferred Criminal Revision bearing No. 78/2012. 8. Applicants/Defendants preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2475 of 2012 before the High Court, Ranchi which has also been dismissed vide Order dated 11.02.2015 and ultimately the Second Party/Defendants furnished Interim Bonds before the Ex. Magistrate, Sri R.P. Kumar in M.P. Case No. 86/2012. Further it is pleaded that one Ishwar Dayal Agarwalla filed a Title Suit No. 154 of 1994 against the Plaintiff in respect of the suit lands including other lands which was decreed vide Judgment & Decree dated 27.06.2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge 5, Dhanbad, against the said Judgment & Decree, the Plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 85 of 2008 before the learned District Judge, Dhanbad which was subsequently transferred to the learned Court of District Judge XIV, Dhanbad. The learned District Judge XIV, Dhanbad vide its Judgment & Decree dated 06.08.2015 pleased to allow and further be pleased to dismiss the Title Suit No. 154/1994. 9. It is further asserted that on 15.06 2016 Ashok Kumar Singh son of the Plaintiff went to the Defendants and asked them to hand over vacant possession of the Schedule premises, the Defendants demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for vacating the suit premises and when Ashok Kumar Singh denied, they became furious and they caught his hands and snatched away Rs. 2,000/- from the pocket of Ashok Kumar Singh and started to press his neck with an intention to take away his life, Ashok Kumar Singh raised alarm and having heard the same, the nearby persons immediately came there and released Ashok Kumar Singh from them. The Defendants flatly denied to handover vacant possession of the suit premises and also threatened for dire consequences if they will be asked to give vacant possession of the suit premises, and thereafter Ashok Kumar Singh lodged written complaint before the Dhansar P.S. and accordingly Dhansar P.S. Case No. 48 of 2016 dated 16.05.2016 under sections 385/323/341/379/34 I.P.C. has been registered against the Defendants. The Defendants have got no manner of right, title, interest over the suit premises and they have breached the term of license or permissive possession by asserting title unto themselves and by indulging in other illegal activities, therefore the license granted to the Defendants has been revoked and they are liable to vacate the suit premises as described in the Schedule hereunder. It is asserted that the cause of action for the present suit arose on 15.06.2016 when the Defendants denied to give vacant possession of the suit premises. 10. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial court by the judgment dated 30.11.2022 has wrongly dismissed the original suit and there is apparent error on the facts of the case. He submits that against that the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2023 and by judgment dated 31.07.2024, the learned appellate court has further dismissed the said appeal and the same error has occurred in the appellate court judgment also. He further submits that the error has occurred on part of both the courts to the fact that one Second Appeal being S.A. No. 605 of 2015, pending before the High Court, arising out of Title Suit No. 154 of 1994, in spite of that the original suit and appeal both have been dismissed by the courts. On these grounds, he submits that substantial question of law is made out, in view of that this second appeal may kindly be admitted. 11. The court finds that the learned trial court has framed nine issues to decide the said original suit. Issue No. (VI) was with regard to whether the plaintiff has got valid right, title, interest over the suit property or not, Issue No. (VII) relates to whether the defendants are in permissive possession over the suit land under the gratuitous licensees of the plaintiff or not and Issue No. (VIII) was related to whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land against the defendants or not. All these issues have been found to be interlinked one, in view of that the learned trial court has taken all these issues simultaneously. 12. P.W.-1 Banke Bihari Singh has stated that he had given permission to the respondent persons to stay since 1986-87, but no paper has been made of the same. All these issues have been found to be interlinked one, in view of that the learned trial court has taken all these issues simultaneously. 12. P.W.-1 Banke Bihari Singh has stated that he had given permission to the respondent persons to stay since 1986-87, but no paper has been made of the same. In paragraph 36, 37, he has said that he has filed a case to get the house vacated from the defendant in capacity of ownership rights. In paragraph 38, it is further stated that he has filed a case on Pyare Khatik Plot No. 2028, Rakwa 4 decimal and Gulab Khatik Plot No. 2100 and rakwa 3 decimal and Khiru Khatik Plot No. 1978, Rakwa 3 decimal. In paragraph 39, he has admitted that from 1986-87 all had given to the defendant to cultivate and live on the suit land premises. In Para 40, he has stated that he has filed the sale deed, agreement, plea, land receipt etc. received from the court related to the disputed land. In paragraphs 48, 50 and 51, the boundaries of the entire plot have been mentioned. 13. P,W.-2 Raghubir Parsad Rajak has stated in paras-3 and 4 that his house is adjacent to the disputed land, therefore he knows the disputed land very well and the defendants used to do the work of harvesting vegetables on their land on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff had given the defendant a house constructed in the disputed land to live in. Whereas in cross examination in para-13, he has stated that he is not aware of what is written in paragraph-4 of the affidavit. In paragraph 5, it is said that the total area of Khata No. 51 is 5.26 acres of land, the plaintiff is watching the encroachment with his senses. P.W.-3 Ashok Kumar also supported the case of the plaintiff. 14. The learned trial court has further perused Exhibit-4, which is the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 89 of 1985 of the plaintiff, which is filed by plaintiff against Darbari Sao and others, in which ex-parte decree was passed in the favor of plaintiff on 11.11.1986 in which only the plaintiff Banke Bihari Singh was examined as witness. The court found that it is an admitted fact that the defendants were the heir of the Ramu Sao, who have allotted the land of khata no. 88., whereas in this present suit the takrari land belongs to the khata no. 51 and the defendant in the present suit was not a party in the Title Suit No. 89 of 1985 and thereafter the plaintiff got his name mutated in the Sherista of State Govt. and is paying Rent regularly and obtaining Rent Receipts, marked as Exhibits-2 to 2/f . It is further claimed by the plaintiff that plot Nos. 2028, 1978, and 2100 plaintiff constructed many rooms and on other plot of khata No. 51 used for cultivation of fruit and vegetables and also paying holding tax for the holding no.313 and 323. 15. In view of the above, the learned court found that the suit land was handed over and the defendants were gracious licensee and said was revoked, in view of that they are liable to be vacated. The learned court further found that one Ishwar Dayal Agarwalla filed a Title Suit No. 154 of 1994 against the Plaintiff in respect of the suit lands including other lands which was decreed vide Judgment & Decree dated 27.06.2008 passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge-5, Dhanbad, against the plaintiff, against the said Judgment & Decree, the Plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 85 of 2008 before the learned District Judge, Dhanbad which was subsequently transferred to the learned Court of District Judge XIV, Dhanbad. The said court by the Judgment and Decree dated 06.08.2015 pleased to allow and further be pleased to dismiss the Title Suit No. 154/1994, however, the second appeal is pending before the High Court against that judgment and the Exhibit-E is the document to suggest that one Rafaquat Hussain executed sale deed in favor of Ishawar Dayal Agrawal vide deed No.12306 dated 28.11.1953, whereas the plaintiff claiming that Rafaquat Hussain entered in to an agreement with the plaintiff in the year 1948 and it appears from the Exhibit- E, filed by defendant, that the sale deed executed in the year 1953 in the favour of Ishwar Dayal Agrawal. Plaintiff in para 5 of plaint petition stated that Rafaquat Hussain died so sale deed could not executed in his favour. 16. Plaintiff in para 5 of plaint petition stated that Rafaquat Hussain died so sale deed could not executed in his favour. 16. The learned trial court further found that Exhibit-1 is rent receipt of dated 01.09.1914, 25.03.1995 and 19.08.2003 and on the basis of that, he has claimed possession over the disputed land after the sale agreement in the year 1948 and got mutated his name, but he has filed the receipt from the year 1995, as such, the court found that the same is doubtful. Considering all these aspects, the learned trial court has decided the issues against the appellant-plaintiff. 17. Aggrieved with that, the Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2023 has been preferred before the learned appellate court and the learned appellate court after hearing both the sides, has further dismissed the said appeal by the judgment dated 31.07.2024. The learned appellate court has further re-appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and in para-12 has further formulated the point to decide the said appeal. 18. The learned appellate court has further considered the facts of Title Suit No. 154 of 1994 and the Title Appeal No. 85 of 2008 and the second appeal being Second Appeal No. 605 of 2015, which is still pending before this court and found that the dispute is still there in view of that pendency, which is actual owner of the suit property, who has right, title and interest over the same and until the order of the High Court has come not, it is difficult to decide the title of the suit property in favour of appellant/plaintiff and in view of that the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant for admitting this second appeal has been meted out by the learned appellate court and discussing all these thing, the learned appellate court has dismissed the said title appeal by of affirming the order of the learned trial court. 19. In view of the above, the court finds that there is no perversity in the facts of the case, either in the judgment of the learned trial court as well as in the judgment of learned appellate court and there are concurrent findings of both the learned courts. 19. In view of the above, the court finds that there is no perversity in the facts of the case, either in the judgment of the learned trial court as well as in the judgment of learned appellate court and there are concurrent findings of both the learned courts. The High Court in admitting the second appeal is not required to reappreciate the facts and if the substantial question of law is made out, then only, the second appeal can be admitted. In the facts of the present case, no substantial question of law is made out, as such, this second appeal is dismissed.