IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.254 of 1998 ---- 1. Sharif Mian S/O Late Nazir Mian 2. Ayub Mian S/O Late Rauf Mian Both residents of Village-Jamhor, P.O. & P.S. Jamhor, District- Aurangabad. --Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Surajdeo Ram, S/O Late Khaderan Ram, Resident of village Jamhor, P.O. & P.S. Jamhor, District- Aurangabad. -- Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. ---- For the appellants : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha No.1, Advocate For the respondent : M/s Bachanjee Ojha & B.K.Pandey, Advocates ---- 04. 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No.114 of 1982 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession and for other ancillary reliefs, including permanent injunction. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 12.07.1989. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No.71 of 1989 (25/1997) which was dismissed on contest with cost by learned 3rd - 2 - Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, vide his judgment and decree dated 03.04.1998. Both the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that in view of the order of the Patna High Court in civil revision, the point of valuation of the suit was rightly decided by the trial court. From the materials on record, it was also rightly found by the learned courts below that there is vagueness in the description of the suit land and the description given in the plaint was sufficient to identify the suit land. So far claim of the defendants that they had transferred plot no.3162 to Braj Mohan Ram is concerned, the learned courts below held that if there would have been such a transfer then there must have been certain papers, but no paper having been produced by the defendants, the said Braj Mohan Ram was not at all a necessary party. 6. Furthermore, the main question in issue was the question of possession and the learned courts below after considering all the evidence produced by the parties, both oral and documentary, came to the finding that most of the witnesses examined even on behalf of the defendants had admitted that the house over plot no.3162 belonged to the plaintiff and also stated that the remaining open land of the said plot was used by the plaintiff. The other documents, including the deeds produced by the plaintiff, - 3 - fully supported his possession and disproved the claim of the defendants over the suit land with regard to possession. Hence, the learned courts were fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff had been able to prove his title and possession over the suit land detailed in the plaint and he was entitled to a decree accordingly. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, nor does this court 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)