Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2014 & 25.03.2014 respectively, passed by learned District Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 84 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.5, Dhanbad.
(2.) The appellant herein, was the plaintiff in the court below and he had instituted the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction for restraining the defendant to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The defendants filed their written statement stating therein that the suit land was recorded under the cadestral survey khata No.41 in the name of Shital Mahto who during his life time was in possession of the suit land and after his death his legal heirs and representatives came in possession of the same. That Gendu Mian, the plaintiff's ancestor, was never in possession in the said land in question, hence, the question of inheritance by the plaintiff does not arise neither did they acquire indefeasible right by adverse possession and the record of rights would show that the plaintiffs were never in possession over the suit land hence, the plaintiff do not have any right, title and interest over the suit land. The defendants in fact are a co-operative society registered under the Bihar Co-operative Society Act, 1935. They had purchased the suit land through the various sale deeds from the rightful owners and their name has been mutated in the sherista of the State of Bihar and they were paying rent for the same. That they have remained in possession of the suit lands. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed as many as eight issues and the relevant issues were issue Nos.4, 5 & 6. The trial court held that the land was the raiyati land of the recorded tenant Shital Mahto who was in possession of the land and after his death his legal heirs and representatives inherited the suit lands. The land was transferred by registered sale deeds to the defendant/ cooperative society. The trial court recorded the finding that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the same neither did they challenge the final publication of the record of rights, published in the year 2005 and the suit was instituted in the year 2009 beyond the period of limitation. It was held that the suit was barred by acquiescence, waiver and estoppel and under Section 258 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant preferred Title Appeal No.84 of 2011 and the learned District Judge-IV, Dhanbad dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial court, consequent thereto the plaintiff/appellant has agitated this second appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the documentary evidence Ext.-2, the order, dated 29.03.2006, Ext.-B, along with the khatiyan Ext.-3 which establishes the possession of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the findings of the courts below are perverse as it has relied on the sale deeds, rent receipts, order of mutation, and the approval of plan by MADA, which are the documents created after the execution of the sale deed.;