1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.249 of 2006 KRISHNANDAN SINGH, S/O SHYAMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BARNI JAGDISH, P.S. PURNAHIYA, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT WARD NO. 14, NEW WARD NO. 22, MOHALLA- BHAVDEOPUR, P.S. & DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ...............DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Versus 1. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRATAP NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BHAVDEOPUR, WARD NO. 15, SITAMARHI TOWN (MUNICIPALITY), P.S. & DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 2. MUSMAT GODABRI DEVI, W/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRATAP NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BHAVDEOPUR WARD NO. 15, SITAMARHI TOWN (MUNICIPALITY) P.S. & DISTRICT-SITAMARHI 3. SMIT. INDU CHOUDHARY, D/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRATAP NARAIN SINGH, W/O SRI SIA SHARAN CHOUDHARY. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LACHHUA, P.O.-MATHWA, P.S. BATHNAHA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 4. SMIT. SANGETE DEVI, D/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRATAP NARAIN SINGH, W/O SRI ARUN KUMAR RAI, ADVOCATE, VILLAGE-BAIRGANAIA, P.O.- RAMPUR SAGGHAN, P.S.-AORAI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 5. SMIT. PUNITA SAHI, D/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRATAP NARAIN SINGH, W/O DR. RAGHVANSH KISHORE PRASAD SHAHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-P.O.SHANI JIWAR, VIA.-RAMPUR HARI, P.S.-SITAMARHI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI ....................PLAINTIFF-RESPONDETS-RESPONDETS. IST PARTY 6. BIRENDRA KUMAR JHA, NAME OF FATHER MENTIONED AS NOT KNOWN, VILALGE-P.S. SURSOAND AT PRESENT BHAVDEOPUR, SITAMARHI TOWN, WARD NO. 14, RINGH BANDH. 7. SATYENDRA KUMAR JHA, NAME OF THE FATHER MENTIONED AS NOT KNOWN, VILLAGE- BATHANAHA, P.S. JALESHWAR (NEPAL) AT PRESENT BHAVDEOPUR, SITAMARHI TOWN, WARD NO. 14, RINGH BANDH ...................DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS IIND PARTY ----------- 08/ 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Second appeal has been filed by defendant- 2 appellant-appellant against the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 21 of 1991 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises detailed in Schedule-1 of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendants and also for realizing arrears of rent and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest without cost by the learned Additional Munsif-3rd, Sitamarhi vide his judgment and decree dated 5.12.2001. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of trial court the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 3 of 2002 (06/2005) which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. II, Sitamarhi vide his judgment and decree dated 21.09.2006. Both the aforesaid judgments and decrees are under challenge in the instant Second appeal. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that both the learned courts below had very carefully gone through the pleading and evidence of the parties and have also incidentally considered the question of Title raised by the defendants and came to the conclusion that neither they could produce any document of title nor any order regarding creation of Jamabandi or mutation or even any return. Hence, only on the basis of a 3 few receipts based on no order of the authority concerned the title of the defendant can not even incidentally be presumed, whereas the plaintiff had been able to prove his subsisting title over the suit property by valid materials produced by them. It was also concurrently found on the basis of both oral or documentary evidence that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. but subsequently the defendant stopped payment of rent and became a defaulter. These are questions on facts based upon valid and relevant evidence and hence the learned courts below having arrived at concurrent findings of facts, this Court in Second appeal cannot interfere with the said findings. Furthermore, this Court finds no 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. S.Sb/- (S.N. Hussain, J.)