IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.449 of 2008 1. NAGESHWAR PRASAD MANDAL, SON OF LATE JAGDISH MANDAL. ……………………..DEFENDANT NO.1……APPELLANT NO.1. 2. RAJA YADAV @ ROHAN RAJA, SON OF NAGESHWAR PRASAD MANDAL. ………………….DEFENDANT NO.2(KA)…APPELLANT NO.2. BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHARSA, WARD NO.16, P.S. AND DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ………………………………………………………APPELLANTS. Versus 1. MOST. GAYATRI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAMBHADRA NARAYAN AJAY. ……………………..PLAINTIFF NO.1……RESPONDENT NO.1. 2. ALOK KANTI SINHA, SON OF LATE RAMBHADRA NARAYAN AJAY. ………………………PLAINTIFF NO.2….RESPONDENT NO.2. 3. ADITYA KANTI SINHA @ ADITYA NATH SINHA, SON OF LATE RAMBHADRA NARAYAN AJAY. ………………………PLAINTIFF NO.3…..RESPONDENT NO.3. 4. ASHA SINHA, DAUGHTER OF LATE RAMBHADRA NARAYAN AJAY. ……………………….PLAINTIFF NO.4….RESPONDENT NO.4. 5. RUPAM SINHA, DAUGHTER OF RAMBHADRA NARAYAN AJAY. ……………………….PLAINTIFF NO.5…RESPONDENT NO.5. ALL SERIAL NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTOF BALHI PHARKIA, P.S. SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT- SAHASRSA. 6. SURESHWAR PRASAD YADAV, SON OF JAGDISH MANDAL. …………………….DEFENDANT NO.2…..RESPONDENT NO.6. 7. AMOD KUMAR, SON OF SURESHWAR PRASAD YADAV. …………………DEFENDANT NO.2(KA)..RESPONDENT NO.7. 8. SANTOSH KUMAR, SON OF SURESHWAR PRASAD YADAV. ……………….DEFENDANT NO.2(KHA)..RESPONDENT NO.8. 9. AMIT KUMAR, SON OF SURESHWAR PRASAD YADAV. ………………DEFENDANT NO.2(GA)…..RESPONDENT NO.9. 10. RINKU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SURESHWAR PRASAD YADAV. 2 ….. ………DEFENDANT NO.2(GHA)…RESPONDENT NO.10. 11. MURLI PRASAD YADAV, SON OF JAGDISH NARAYAN MANDAL. …………..DEFENDANT NO.3…………RESPONDENT NO.11. 12. DEEPAK KUMAR, SON OF MURLI PRASAD YADAV. ……………DEFENDANT NO.3(KA)…..RESPONDENT NO.12. 13. RAVI KUMAR, SON OF MURLI PRASAD YADAV. …………...DEFENDANT NO.3(KHA)….RESPONDENT NO.13. ALL SERIAL NO.6 TO 13 ARE RESIDENT OF MOUZA ARAN UTTARAKHAN, POLICE STATION SAHARSA AND DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 14. MOST. KRISHNA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SATYANARAYAN PRASAD YADAV, DAUGHTER OF LATE JAGDISH NARAYAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAHRIYA CHAKLA, POLICE STATION-CHHATAPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. ………………………………………….RESPONDENT NO.14-A. 15. AHALYA DEVI, WIFE OF KAMTA PRASAD YADAV, DAUGHTER OF LATE JAGDISH NARAYAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOSLI PATTI, P.O. RAMNAGAR, POLICE STATION-SUPAUL, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ………………………………………….RESPONDENT NO.14-B. 16. RATAN DEVI, WIFE OF SITARAM PRASAD YADAV, DAUGHTER OF LATE JAGDISH NARAYAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GIBACHPUR, P.O. KATAYA, P.S. SINGHESHWAR, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. ………………………………………..RESPONDENT NO.14-C. ----------- For the Appellants : M/s. P.N. Shahi and Partha Sarthy, Advocates. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : M/s. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi Senior Advocate and Ratan Kumar, Advocate. ------------ 11. 2.7.2010. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the appellate court passed in Title Appeal No.27 of 1999 affirming the Judgment of the trial court passed in Title 3 Suit No.35 of 1984. The Title Suit No.35 of 1984 was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession over the suit land. Apart from the above, relief was also sought for declaration that the sale deed in favour of the defendants dated 12.7.1976 is forged and fabricated document and has never been acted upon. Upon appreciation of evidence on record, the trial court had held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving their title and possession over the suit land whereas with regard to the sale deed dated 12.7.1976 executed by Most. Sundari Devi in favour of the defendant no.4, it had been held that there is no evidence on record to show that the aforesaid Sundari Devi was the widow of Awadh Tanti so that she could have a right to transfer the land in question. The trial court decreed the suit on contest and held that the defendants are tress passers over the suit premises and directed them to vacate the same within two months. The appellate court also, while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, had observed that there was a question mark upon the fact that as to whether Sundari Devi was the widow of Awadh Tanti so that he could execute 4 the sale deed dated 12.7.1976 in favour of the defendants. Thus, it had held that document is simply to be ignored and finally upon the appreciation of materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and evidence led on their behalf, the appellate court had found that the plaintiffs had valid title upon the land premises in question and had dismissed the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. The case of the appellants is that they are residing in a house, which is standing over Plot No.381 having Holding No.443 that had wrongly been decreed in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the courts below had committed serious error in declaring that the concerned sale deed in favour of the appellants could not be binding upon the plaintiffs. Similarly, it has been submitted that error had been committed on behalf of both the courts below in upholding the title of the plaintiffs upon the suit land and house, appartening to Khata No.821, Khesra No.381 having an area of 5 Kathas 17 Dhurs from the north. It has been contended that the appellants were the purchasers from the second wife of the recorded tenant, who was having interest over 50% of the concerned plot total area of 5 which was 11 Kathas 14 Dhurs. The plaintiffs claim to be purchasers of the remaining 50% share from Achal Tanti, son of Awadh Tanti whereas the defendants-appellants claim to be purchaser from Sundari Devi, the second widow of the other recorded tenant, namely, Chhathu Tanti. It is further contended since both the plaintiffs as well as defendants are in possession of different parts of the aforesaid lands and the defendants’ title had illegally been questioned and decided against them. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, on the other hand, submitted that the property, the title of which had been claimed to be declared in favour of the plaintiffs is the house standing over the aforesaid Plot No.381 of Holding No.338 which is not being claimed by the appellants. Appellants claim Holding No.443 which is not being claimed by the plaintiffs. The courts below upon consideration and appreciation of both documentary and oral evidence and cases of the respective parties, had come to the conclusion that the suit property is a house standing over the Plot No.381 appertaining to Holding No.338. It is stated that the plaintiffs had never claimed any right, title and interest in Holding Plot No.443. This has also been brought to the notice of this Court 6 that the trial court had categorically observed that the defendants had filed receipts with respect to Holding No.443, for which the plainfiffs have no concern as the suit building appertains to Holding No.338. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 drew attention of this Court towards the Judgment of the appellate court also, wherein it had been noticed that the trial court had categorically found that the appellants (who are also appellants herein) could not produce the evidence with regard to their possession or title upon a Holding No.338. The documents produced on their behalf relates to Holding No.443, which is not the subject matter of the suit. The courts below have not expressed any opinion with regard to the aforesaid Holding. In continuation of the same, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that before this Court also the plaintiffs-respondents do not claim any right, title and interest upon the house appertaining to Holding No.443. In view of the aforesaid facts and on perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the controversy has been set at rest by the trial court as well as appellate court which stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises out of the same. 7 As a result, this appeal is dismissed on being devoid of any merit. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)