IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.452 of 2008 1. Ramashray Pandey 2. Ram Ashish Pandey Both sons of Sri Deo Narain Pandey dand resident of village Paluhar, P.O. & P.S. Tekari District Gaya. …Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Ram Nath Pandey, son of late Ram Pratap Pandey 2(A).Anil Kumar Pandey 2(B).Sunil Kumar Pandey Both sons of late Paras Nath Pandey 2(C). Madhuri Kumari 2(D). Raikha Kumari 2(E). Rubi Kumari All daughters of late Paras Nath Pandey 2. Santi Devi, D/o late Paras Nath Pandey 3. Awadhesh Pandey, son of late Ramchandrika Pandey 4. Dilip Kumar Pandey , son of late Rameshwar Pandey 5. Gupteshwar Pandey 6. Brij Kishore Pandey Both sons of late Anirudh Pandey 7. Madan Pandey, son of late Buttan Pandey 8. Murari Pandey, son of late Parmeshwar Dayal Pandey 9. Barun Pandey 10.Bacha Pandey 11.Babban Pandey Nos. 9 to 11 are sons of late Parduman Pandey 12.Baliram Pandey, son of late Ram Bilash Pandey All resident of village Paluhar, P.S. Tekari, District Gaya. … Principal Defendants-Principal Respondents-Respondents 1st set. 13.Dulhin Chandrawati Devi, wife of late Raj Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh @ Krishna Ballabh Prasad Narayan Singh, resident of Telbigha Road, Rang Bahadur Road, P.S. Kotwali Town, District Gaya. …Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 2nd set. ------ 2 For the appellants : Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Sr.Advocate, with M/s Jitendra Prasad Singh & Abhishek, Advocates. For respondents: None. ----------- 05/ 18.05.2010 I.A. No. 6351 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of the appellants for condoning the delay in filing of the instant second appeal. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the appellants and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown, which prevented the appellants from filing this second appeal earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in filing of this second appeal is condoned. 2. I.A. No. 3873 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the appellants on 20.04.2010 for allowing the appellants to continue with the memorandum of appeal without impleading Rameshwar Pandey, Anirudh Pandey and Praduman Pandey, who were respondents no. 3, 4 and 11 in the court of appeal below and their heirs were substituted at the stage of M.A. No. 193 of 1998 and they are already on record as respondents no. 3 to 5, respondents no. 6 to 7 and respondents no. 9 to 12 in the memorandum of the instant second appeal. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this interlocutory application is allowed. Let this appeal continue without impleading Rameshwar Pandey, Anirudh Pandey and Praduman Pandey and let it continue with respect to respondents no. 3 to 7 and 9 to 12. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This 3 second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs-appellants-appellants challenging judgments and decree of both the courts below. 4. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 94 of 1988, which was filed by plaintiffs-appellants for declaration of their title over the suit land and also for confirmation of possession as well as injunction and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by Munsif-III, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 07.03.1992. 5. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 21 of 1994 (20/1992), which was also dismissed on contest by Ist Additional District Judge, Gaya, vide his judgment and decree dated 04.09.2008. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of both the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 6. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the judgments and decree of the courts below and argued the case of plaintiffs-appellants on various angles, but the crux of the matter is as to whether the plaintiffs had been able to prove that they were heirs of Ahibaran Pandey, who was recorded raiyat of cadestral survey and whether the genealogy produced by the plaintiffs was correct. The plaintiffs had claimed that Ahibaran Pandey had died issueless leaving behind only his cousin Deonarain Pandey as his heir and legal representative and the plaintiffs are the sons of the said Deonarain Pandey. 7. The aforesaid claim of the plaintiffs having been 4 denied by the defendants, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove their aforesaid pleadings by valid and proper evidence and in that regard they cannot be allowed to take benefit of the weakness of the defendants’ evidence, as the law in that regard is well settled. 8. In support of their aforesaid claim, the plaintiffs had produced two documentary evidences (Exts. 2 and 3) and two oral evidence (P.Ws. 1 and 3). So far Ext. 2 is concerned, it is a single rent receipt produced by the plaintiffs although they have claimed that they are absolute owners in exclusive possession of the suit property since the time of their ancestors. Ext. 3 is a copy of the Demand Register in the name of plaintiff Ramashray Pandey with respect to the suit land, but it does not disclose as to on whose order the demand with respect to suit land was opened in the name of the plaintiffs specially when the demand is opened after a proceeding is initiated and after considering the materials on record order is passed by a competent authority in that regard and only thereafter a demand register is prepared. In the said circumstance, the aforesaid documentary evidence did not inspire confidence in absence of any other documentary evidence, either during the period of Zamindari or even after the vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar. However, in any view of the matter those documents did also not prove the geneology given by the plaintiffs. 9. So far oral evidence is concerned, although the plaintiffs adduced seven witnesses but none of them stated a word about the genealogy or the alleged inheritance of the plaintiffs from 5 recorded Raiyat Ahibaran Pandey, except P.Ws.1 and 3. Those evidences were fully considered in detail by the courts below, which found that although those witnesses specifically stated about the relationship of the plaintiffs with Ahibaran Pandey, but P.W.1 was one of the plaintiffs himself and even according to his deposition, he had no proof to say that his great grandfather Ramphal Pandey was the son of Ganga Pandey, who was grandfather of Ahibaran Pandey. Furthermore P.W.3 had deposed about the relationship of the plaintiffs with Ahibaran Pandey , but Ext. I/1 clearly showed that the said P.W. 3 had deposed in Title Suit No. 19 of 1989 against the defendants of the instant suit and hence the learned courts below have rightly not relied upon the depositions of P.Ws. 1 &3 as they were interested persons and their statements were not supported by any other material whatsoever either documentary or oral. 10. In addition to the above evidence, Ext. J is the cadastral survey khatian, which was in the name of Ahibaran Pandey, Ext. L is the revisional survey khatian in the name of Chandrawati Devi (respondent no.14) with respect to the suit land. Apart from that Exts. D series are rent receipts in favour of the aforesaid defendants since the year 1955-1956 till 1988-1989, whereas, Exts. N & N/1 are the compromise petition between the said Chandrawati Devi and the contesting defendants filed in this Court in F.A No. 207 of1974 as well as the decree prepared in Title Suit No. 42 of 1963 (52/1970) showing that the defendants came in possession of the suit land on the basis of compromise as the suit 6 land had been shown in the schedule of the contesting defendants. 11. The courts below had also very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties with respect to the claim of title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and found that there was no material on record to support the said claim and the plaintiffs had miserably failed to prove their pleadings by any reliable evidence. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )