IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.399 of 2010 1. Nanhaku Ram , Son of Late Sheo Jatan Ram 2. Smt. Subhagia Devi, son of Late Seolakhan Ram. 3. Khobari Ram, Son of Rekha Ram 4 Babu Ram, son of Gajar Ram 5 Kariman Ram, Son of Tikadhari Ram, Nagu Ram , son of Sheojatan Ram, all 1 to 6 are residents of village Urdaniya, P.O- Urdaniya, P.S- Baroon District- Aurangabad. Versus 1. Brijnandan Singh , Son of Surajdeo Singh 2. Ram Layak Singh, Son of Surajdeo Singh, 3. Shyam Layak Singh, son of Surajdeo Singh all 1 to 3 Habaspur, P.O- Siris, P.SBaroon(Aurangabad) 4. The State of Bihar through the Collector, at & District- Aurangabad. 5. The Collector, Aurangabad L.R.D.C Aurangabad 6. Anchal Adhikari, Baroon, Aurangabad 7. Gaya Ram, Son of late Seolakhan Ram 8. Manoj Ram, son of Late Seolakhan Ram 9. Smt. Savitri Devi, daughter of late Sheolakhan Ram 10. Smt. Saraswati Devi, daughter of late Sheolakhan Ram, all resident of village- Habaspore, P.O- Siris, P.S- Pauthu, Dist- aurangabad. ---------------------------------- 05 30.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment of reversal, decreeing the suit. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of this title over the suit land and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the 2 possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have claimed the land by way of settlement from the ex- landlord whereas the defendant have claimed their right over the suit land on the basis of the Basgit purcha granted to them under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. The admitted position in the case is that the suit land was Gairmajarua Malik land and the defendants have come out with the case that the suit land remained Parti land at the time of vesting of the Jamindari. and has vested in the State of Bihar which has granted the Basgit Purcha to the defendants who are the Harijans. The primal question between the parties is the fact of settlement of the suit land by the ex- landlord in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also clear from the reliefs prayed in the suit that no relief for canceling the Basgit Purcha has been sought by the plaintiffs. On consideration of the evidence of the parties, in view of the rival pleadings and submissions, the trial court has come to the finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the case of settlement of the suit land with them by the ex-landlord and also their possession over land. The 3 appeal was filed by the plaintiffs and at the appellate stage some additional evidence have been allowed to be adduced by the plaintiffs. The order allowing additional evidence had not been challenged by the defendants. After analyzing the evidence on record, the appellant court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have established the settlement of the suit land to them by the ex-landlord by Hukumnama. The appellate court has also taken notice of the return filed by the ex-landlord at the time of vesting wherein the suit land has been mentioned in the name of the plaintiffs. The Exhibits 10 and Exhibits 11, which are the order sheet of the proceeding under Section 40 of the B.T. Act initiated at the instance of the plaintiff for fixation of rent for the suit land and the order sheet of Misc. Case No. 68 of 1973 of the court of Munsif Aurangabad respectively, have also been taken notice by the appellant court to come to the conclusion that the circle officer had found the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land as far back the year 1979. Although the defendants assailed the documentary evidence with regard to Hukumnama, return and the order sheet of the compensation case as false and fabricated documents but the appellate court has relied upon 4 the same because the defendants did not establish the case of forgery and fabrication as asserted and also could not bring any document on the record to contradict the facts disclosed by those documents. Consequently the appellant court has allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has strenuously submitted that the findings recorded by the appellate court are not based on proper appreciation of evidence. It has been urged by the learned counsel that the statement of PW. 7 in his deposition, which clearly falsifies the case of the plaintiffs, have not been taken notice by the appellate court below. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that the reasonings assigned by the trial court are sound and based upon evidence and should have been affirmed by the appellate court. After perusing the judgments of the court below and considering the submissions of the leaned counsel, it appears that the plaintiffs have brought documentary evidence on record to establish their case of settlement of the suit land by the ex- landlord and also to establish their 5 case of possession over the same. The copy of the return filed by the ex- landlord in the name of the plaintiff as well as the order sheets of the rent fixation case clearly support the case of the plaintiff. In view of this documentary evidence, which could not be contradicted, it is difficult to infer that the suit lands had vested in the State of Bihar which thereafter had validly granted Basgit Purcha to the defendants. The issues arising between the parties have been concluded by the findings of fact as recorded by the appellate court below. There is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Namita ( V. Nath, J.)