Counsel for the respondents is absent.

2. By the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the matters in which proceedings in the lower courts were stayed by the orders of this Court, have been notified in the cause list for 22/23.04.2016. The instant Second Appeal was filed on 28.03.1995 and thereafter, it was listed on as many as 11 occasions. When it was pointed out to the Bench that the counsel representing the respondents is no more, the Registry was directed to send notices to the respondents. The office report indicates that notice has been served upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The instant appeal was admitted on 16.08.1995 and an order staying further proceedings in Execution Case No. 5 of 1995 was granted vide order dated 22.07.1996. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter any further.

3. Briefly stated, Title Suit No. 33 of 1985 was instituted by Lodhu Oraon and Belsu Oraon for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties and for a declaration that deed of adoption dated 25.07.1966 executed in favour of Mangal Das Oraon, defendant no. 1 is not legal and valid and the defendant no. 1 has not acquired any valid right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the said adoption-deed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were formulated:-

1. Is the suit of the plaintiffs maintainable?

2. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action for their suit?

3. Is the suit barred by limitation, estoppel and also barred under Specific Relief Act?

4. Whether plaintiffs' father Basu Oraon was adopted as son by Maru Oraon recorded tenant on 10.02.1942?

5. Is Mangal Das Oraon defendant no. 5 adopted son of Maru Oraon?

6. Are the plaintiffs entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession?

7. To what relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled to?

4. The trial court held that the suit was barred by limitation and the deed of adoption dated 25.07.1966 was executed by Maru Oraon in favour of Mangal Das Oraon. It was further held that the plaintiffs' father namely, Basu Oraon was not adopted by Maru Oraon as claimed on 10.02.1942. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial court on the issues of limitation and adoption of Mangal Das Oraon by Maru Oraon and allowed Title Appeal No. 87/24/1990-91 by reversing the lower court's order. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed the instant Second Appeal.

5. While admitting the Second Appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated :-

(A) whether there is a violation of mandate of law in relying on a sada document on adoption in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and whether the limitation point decided in favour of the plaintiffs is against all norms?

(B) whether the decision arrived at under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act decided in the year 1978 was binding to the parties?

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the documents on record.

7. Mr. L.K. Lall, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the proceeding of SAR Case No. 102 of 1977, the father of the defendant no. 1 produced the deed of adoption dated 25.07.1966 and the said case was dismissed on 23.03.1978 however, the suit seeking a declaration that the adoption-deed dated 25.07.1966 is not legal and valid was filed in the year, 1985 and thus, the suit was barred by limitation.

8. From the pleadings of the parties, it emerges that Maru Oroan was the recorded raiyat in respect of land comprised under Khata No. 240 in Village Sasmunda, P.S. Bandra, District Ranchi. The father of the plaintiffs was one of the sons of sister of Maru Oraon's father. Since Maru Oraon had no son, he adopted the father of the plaintiffs on 10.02.1942 in presence of Panches and a memorandum was prepared on the same day by scribe J.M. Minz. Babu Bachan Singh, Jingra Oraon, Aliar Chokidar and others were the witnesses of the said memorandum dated 10.02.1942. The father