JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree dated 29.3.2019 (decree signed on 18.4.2019) passed by District Judge, VI, Garhwa dismissing Civil Appeal no. 04/2005 and affirmed the and decree Judgment dated 28.1.2005 (decree signed on 10.02.2005) passed by Munsif, Garhwa in Title Suit no. 52/1998.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were the defendants before the learned trial court. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the appeal has been dismissed. He submits that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts but the finding of the learned appellate court is vitiated due to misconstruing Exhibit 2 i.e. auction sale certificate while deciding the issue of title against the defendants. The learned counsel has submitted that in fact there has been no auction of the property in favour of the ancestor of the plaintiffs, who were the then land lord.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the title suit was filed being Title Suit No.52 of 1998 seeking declaration of right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and also permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs.

5. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable as framed?

2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession?

4. Whether the suit is barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence?

5. Whether the suit is barred u/s 34 of Specific Relief Act?

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

7. Whether the suit is undervalued?

8. Has the plaintiff indefeasible right, title and possession over the suit land?

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to put in possession of land if found out of possession?

10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed and decree in the suit?”

6. The main issue for consideration before the learned trial court was primarily issue nos.8 and 9. The aforesaid issues were decided vide paragraph 10 onwards of the trial court’s judgment. Upon consideration of the materials on record and the evidences produced by the parties, the learned trial court recorded a finding in paragraph no.13 that the ancestors of the plaintiffs got the property through sale in rent suit and they have been paying rent in connection with the property to the State.

7. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and held that the plaintiffs have been able to prove right, title, interest and also possession with regard to the suit property. The learned trial court also referred to the rent suit No.399 of 1917 in connection with the property involved in the present case was auction sold.

8. The learned first appellate court also considered the materials on record and considered all the issues as framed by the learned trial court including the issue No.8 and 9. The learned first appellate court has recorded that the case of the plaintiffs was that the land was acquired by the ancestors of the plaintiffs through Rent Suit No.399 of 1917 and Execution Case No.248 of 1920-1921 and since then they were continuously having right, title and possession over the land. In order to establish this fact, the plaintiffs filed Exhibit 2 the certified copy of the certificate of auction sale passed by Munsif/Deputy Collector, District Palamau in Execution Case No.399 of 1917. In the auction sale, many lands were included including the suit land. The plaintiffs also filed Exhibit 4 which was the certified copy of Form M prepared under Section 5, 6 and 7 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 which showed their possession. Other documents were also filed to substantiate their possession over the property. Oral evide