ORDER
N.N. Tiwari, J.
1. This is the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants' appeal, against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 15th July, 2004 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Pakur in Title Appeal No. 74 of 1985 upholding the judgment and decree dated 20th July. 1985 passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Pakur in Title Suit No. 17 of 1982.
2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in representative capacity on behalf of 16 annas raiyats of village Ramnathpur, P.S. Hiranpur Dist. Pakur, praying for a decree declaring that the suit land measuring 20 bighas 16 kathas and 16 dhurs of Jamabandi No. 20 is a 'fauti' land and that the defendant No. 1 is not the adopted son of Shankho Soren and the registered deed of adoption dated 20.5.1969 is void, farzi and not binding on the plaintiffs and that the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur in R.L. Case No. 73 of 1969-70 and that appellate and revisional orders arising out of the same are not binding upon the plaintiffs.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land was recorded in the name of Pitho Soren son of Baijnath Soren and others. The recorded tenants predeceased Shankho Soren without any issue or legal heir. Shankho Soren also died issueless, sometime, in the year 1940 leaving behind his widow Sumi Tudu, Sumi Tudu died in 1969 and after her death the land became 'fautr. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Sumi Tudu, different persons started laying false claim over the suit land, which led to institution of R.L.R. Case No. 73 of 1969-70 in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur wherein a declaration was sought that the land is a jautt land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after hearing, held that the land was not a 'fauti holding. The said order was confirmed by appellate and revisional authorities and thereafter the suit was filed.
4. The defendant No. 1 appeared and contested the suit. In the written statement, after taking other legal grounds, it was stated that the same issue had been previously decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer and it was confirmed up to the revisional authority. It has been stated that Shankho Soren and Sumi Tudu were issue-less and they adopted the defendant No. 1 in the year 1935 according to the prevalent custom of Santhals. He has been living in the house of the Shankho Soren as their son since then and got married in that house. Shankho Soren died in 1950 and he performed his last rites. He performed the last rites of Sumi Tudu when she died in 1969. It has been stated that he is validly adopted son and inherited the suit land as such and that the suit land is not a fauti holding. He has been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land on payment of rent regularly.
5. The defendant No. 2 filed separate written statement and claimed himself as the agnate and claimed to have inherited the suit land being the agnate of Shankho Soren according to the Santhal customs. He also stated that since he has inherited the land, the holding is not a 'fauti holding.
6. Learned trial Court, on the basis of the said pleadings, framed several issues. Parties led their evidences. Learned trial Court discussed and considered the facts, evidences and materials on record and held that the suit land is not a 'fauti holding' and that the said land belonged to Shankho Soren and that said Shankho Soren and Sumi Tudu adopted the defendant No. 1 and the said defendant No. 1 has been in cultivating possession of the suit land. He further held that the deed (Exhibit 'E') is not a deed of adoption, rather the same is a document confirming the earlier adoption and by Itself has not created any legal rights or title. Learned trial Court, thus, decided all the material issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, then, preferred appeal in the Court of District Judge, Pakur which was registered as Title Appeal No. 74 of 1985. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the First Additional District Judge. Pakur. Learned lower appellate Court thoroughly scrutinized and appraised the evidences and after due consideration thereof came to the finding that the defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of Shankho Soren and Sumi Tudu and that he has been in physical cultivating possession and the document dated 20.5.1969 is a valid document, which goes to support the adoption of defendant No. 1. It was held that the issues arising in the suit was cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner and the same was already decided by the competent authority and the decision was confirmed upto the revisional authority and that the suit is barred under the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. Learned lower appellate Court, thus, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
7. Mr. S.N. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that both the Courts below have committed serious error in holding the adoption of the defendant No. 1 as a valid adoption. Learned Counsel submitted that the document (Exhibit 'E') is not a document of adoption, but the same has been relied upon by the Courts below in holding that the defendant No. 1 has been validly adopted.
8. After hearing learned Counsel and considering the impugned judgments as well as the materials on record, I find that the Courts below have considered Exhibit 'E' and other evidences on record and have come to the finding that there was adoption in the life time of Shankho Soren, who admittedly died before 1950. Learned trial Court has considered the document and has said that the said Exhibit 'D' dated 20.5.1959 was a mere confirmation of the adoption and the same itself has not created any right, title and as such the same cannot be held to be invalid. Learned Courts below have come to the finding that the defendant No. 1 was adopted in accordance with the Santhal Customs and that he has been in cultivating possession of the land and that the land is not a fauti (abandoned) holding and in view of the said concurrent finding of fact, I do not find any ground made out giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided in this second appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.