IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.49 of 2007 Ramodar Choudhary s/o Late Siasaran Choudhry resident of Village Sahasram P.S. Biraul Dist. Darbhanga Defendant- Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Prof Ram Narain Kedia through its Principal Secretary of the Society Plaintiff – Respondent-Respondent Ist Party 2. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga cum President Shri Darbhanga Goshala Society 3. Pawan Kumar Sureka , Member, Mohalla Masraf Bazar Town Darbhanga 4. Badri Prasad Bairoliya, Member, Mahabir Rice Mill, Donar Town Darbhanga 5. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Darbhanga, Member 6. The Block Development Officer, Darbhanga, Member, Shri Darbhanga Goshala Society, Darbhanga Plaintiffs 2nd Party – Respondent-Respondent 2nd Party --------------- For the appellant: Mr Shashi Shekhar Dwevdi, Sr. Advocate Mr Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate For respondent no.1: Mr Uma Shankar Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate ------------------- 19/ 10.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.47 of 1988( 9/ 1999) which was filed by the plaintiffs- respondents-respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of the suit premises as well as other ancillary reliefs. The aforesaid suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif II, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 14.05.2002. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the - 2 - learned trial court, the defendant- appellant filed Title Appeal no.15 of 2002 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court no. IV, Darbhanga, vide his judgment and decree dated 31.01.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of both the learned 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 learned courts below but from the materials on record including the impugned judgments of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have decided the matter on the basis of adverse possession and Ekrarnama dated 01.02.1978 said to have been executed by erstwhile Secretary of Darbhanga Goshala Society (plaintiff no.1- respondent no.1). Thus, it is apparent that the defendant-appellant had admitted the original title of the plaintiff and only on the basis of the said Ekrarnama as well as adverse possession claimed the suit property. Both the learned courts below very carefully went through the entire materials on record and found that the said Ekrarnama was illegal and void document and on its basis no title can be legally passed to the defendant. 6. So far the question of adverse possession is concerned, it was found that according to the claim of the defendant- appellant itself that he came in possession of the suit premises on the basis of the said Ekrarnama dated 01.02.1978 and hence the suit having been filed in the year 1988 there was no question of acquiring any title - 3 - by adverse possession. 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 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)