IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.23 of 2004 RAM JEE SINGH & ORS Versus ANURAGO KUER & ORS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar,Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------------- 11/ 01-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 229 of 1989 which was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents for declaration of their rights and title over the suit land and for confirmation of their possession over the same and also for injuction as well as other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif 3rd Court, Chapra by judgment and decree dated 19.09.1995 against which the defendants/ appellants filed Title Appeal No. 72 of 1995 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th , Chapra at Saran by judgment and decree dated 20.09.2003. The said judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court has been challenged by the defendants/ appellants in the instant second 2 appeal. The learned courts below have considered the entire matter in detail in the light of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties and they specifically arrived at the finding of fact that Yadu Rai and his son Deolal Rai died prior to 1934, whereas the evidence also showed that Deolal Rai died in the life time of his father, Yadu Rai. The learned courts below also specifically found that the defendants’ witnesses have admitted the plaintiffs’ case that the house on the suit land was constructed in the year 1980 . On the basis of evidences the learned courts below have come to another finding of fact that the house was constructed in the year 1980. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record the learned courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the defendants had not inherited anything from the previous Sikmidar who died prior to 1934, as mentioned above. The learned courts below have also found that the defendants could not produce any proof of their possession for the 3 period prior to 1980. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned courts below are covered by finding of facts and this Court neither finds any illegality therein nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. B.Tiwary/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)