IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.150 of 2008 1. Basudeo Rai son of Late Brahmdeo Rai 2. Tuntun Rai son of Basudeo Rai 3. Arbind Rai son of Basudeo Rai All are residents of village and P.O. Bairiya, P.S. Kessariya, District East Champaran. …….Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Ainul Haque son of Rustam Ali, resident of village Bairiya Tola, Baradih, P.O. Bairiya P.S. Kessariya District East Champaran. ……..Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellants : Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate. For the respondent : None ----------- 06/ 04.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.54 of 1997 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for declaration of his title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif Sadar, Motihari vide his judgment and decree dated 23.02.2004. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants-appellants filed Title Appeal No.22 of 2004 (12/2005), which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.III,East Champaran vide his judgment and decree dated 29.02.2008. The said judgments 2 and decree of both the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Although learned counsel for the defendants- appellants vehemently opposes the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, but the fact remains that admittedly the suit land originally belonged to the ancestors of the plaintiff. However, defendants claimed the suit land on the basis of an alleged oral purchase by Gulab Rai, the grand father of defendant no.1 from the predecessor of the plaintiff in the year 1919 and claimed possession of the suit premises since then. 6. The plaintiff-respondent denied any such oral sale by his predecessor in favour of the predecessor of the defendant and stated that his predecessor continued in possession, whereafter a registered deed of partition was executed between the heirs of the predecessor of the plaintiff on 13.03.1942 (Ext.4) and all the said heirs came in possession of their respective shares. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that on 20.10.1987 one of the said co- sharers Rustam Ali executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Moinul Haque. Apart from the said registered document, the plaintiff produced continuous rent receipts of the land. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned courts below came to the specific conclusion that there was no witness of the oral sale and the said oral sale of 1919 was not validly proved by either any documentary or oral evidence and hence the defendants had failed to establish the case of oral 3 purchase by their predecessor. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances since the basis of the claim of the defendants had fallen the learned courts below rightly held that the defendants- appellants did not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit property by way of the aforesaid oral sale. 8. So far the question of possession is concerned, no document had been produced by the defendants and only their witnesses had made bald statements that they had seen defendants in possession over the suit land since they gained their senses and that the father of plaintiff had called a panchayati in the year 1980 in which papers were demanded from the father of the defendants but no award was given in the panchayati and the father of defendants refused to give vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff. These statements of the witnesses were also not supported by any document whatsoever. 9. On the other hand, the plaintiff had proved by several exhibits including registered documents as well as continuous rent receipts that he continuously remained in possession of the suit premises till filing of the suit and was dispossessed much thereafter only during the pendency of the suit on 15.12.1997 by the defendants. The aforesaid findings of both the learned courts below with regard to the issue of possession are concurrent findings of fact based on valid evidence and hence it cannot be disturbed by this court in a second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4 10. Furthermore, so far the question of adverse possession is concerned, the learned courts below rightly found that the defendants had neither pleaded nor proved necessary ingredients of possession with respect to the date and time when they came in possession and when their possession became hostile and they perfected their title. Furthermore, defendants had been claiming their title on the basis of oral purchase of 1919, which was quite contradictory to their claim of adverse possession. 11. 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )