IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.332 of 2008 ----------- Kanta Prasad Singh, son of late Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of village Bhandarban, P.S. Shahkund, District Bhagalpur. …Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant versus The State of Bihar through Collector, Bhagalpur. …Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. -------- For the Appellant : Mr. K. K. Tiwary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, G.A. 2 and Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, J.C. to G.A. 2. ---------- 04/ 27.04.2010 Heard Mr. K K. Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Udai Bhan Singh, learned A.C. to G.A. appearing on behalf of defendant-State of Bihar. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 31 of 1990, which was filed by plaintiff-appellant for declaration of title over the suit property, detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the Additional Munsif-I, Bhagalpur vide his judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 42 of 2006, which was also dismissed on contest by the District Judge, Bhagalpur, vide his judgment and decree dated 16.07.2008. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, but 2 from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is quite apparent that the suit land was registered in the khatian as Anabad sarvsadharan (Gair Mazarua Aam ) and the said entry in the khatian has never been challenged. 6. It is also apparent from the record that the plaintiff had claimed that he got settlement of the suit land from the ex-intermediary in the year 1946, but he did not produce any document or any zamindari receipt or any return etc. in support of his said claim. Furthermore, the claim of the plaintiff is that he had those documents but they were destroyed in flood. The court of appeal below specifically found that the instant suit was filed in the year 1990 and flood had come several years thereafter, but in the meantime those documents were not filed although they should have been filed in the trial court itself. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite apparent that the claim of the plaintiff was not supported by any valid document and he failed to substantiate his pleadings although the onus was squarely upon him to prove the same. 8. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments of the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in this instant appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XVI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )