IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.220 of 2010 NARESH SINGH & ORS. Versus BALRAM SINGH & ORS. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vishwanath Chaubey, Advocate O R D E R 08. 24. 08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C. and the second appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The defendant-appellant appellant has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2010 passed by Sri Lalan Lal Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Sheikhpura in M.T.A. No. 6 of 2009 confirming the judgment dated 24.12.2008 and decree dated 16.1.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sheikhpura in Title Suit No. 24 of 1996 decreeing the plaintiffs- respondents’ suit. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid title suit No. 24 of 1996 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiff the suit property along with the other properties were recorded in the name of Navrangi Singh. He did not pay rent and, therefore, the ex- 2 landlord Raja Kamleshwari Prasad Singh filed a rent suit in the court of Munsif Jamui in the year 1916. The said suit was decreed and the ex-landlord Raja Kamleshwari Prasad Singh himself purchased the properties and obtained possession in Execution Case No. 42 of 1916. The said Raja Kamleshwari Prasad Singh thereafter settled the suit property including other lands in favour of Ilaichi Devi because her husband was murdered while he was in service of Raja. The son of Ilaichi Devi namely Sukhnandan sold the suit property to the plaintiffs through two registered sale deeds dated 27.4.1973 measuring 1.23 acres each and the plaintiffs came in possession. In the year 1980 the defendants created trouble in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was started, which was converted to 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding and possession of the defendants was declared. The defendants thereafter dispossessed the plaintiffs hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendants’ case is that they are decedent of Navrangi Singh, the recorded owner of the land and the land is their ancestral land. Both the courts below found the title of the plaintiffs and decreed the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration and recovery of possession. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no pleading in the plaint that Navrangi Singh was dispossessed and likewise there is no pleading as to on what date plaintiffs were disposed by the defendants and, therefore, the 3 learned court below could not have granted the decree for recovery of possession. From the perusal of the judgments of both the courts below it appears that learned courts below have considered the various documents i.e. the execution case being Execution Case No. 42 of 1916 which has been marked as Ext. 6 series, the Hukumnama dated 4.3.1932 Ext.- 4 in favour of Ilaichi Devi, registered sale deeds sold by Sukhnandan in favour of the plaintiffs. Ext. 3-A, Ext. 8 to 10 which are the sale deeds of Sukhnandan in favour of different persons regarding the Hukumnama property. After considering those documents both the courts below found that the plaintiffs have acquired title to the suit property. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the learned court below could not have decreed the plaintiffs’ suit for recovery of possession unless the date for dispossession was specifically pleaded is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs were only required to prove their title. In this case, it is not the case of the defendants that they acquired titled by adverse possession. In the case of Smt. Gita Rani Paul Vs. Dibyendra Kundu AIR 1991 SC 395, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the title of the appellants-plaintiffs to the land in dispute have been proved so the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession. Since the plaintiffs have proved their title, it was not necessary for the High Court to go into the question of 4 ascertaining the date of dispossession. It appears that in that case, the findings of the trial court were set aside by the High Court on the ground that actual date of dispossession not specifically mentioned in the plaint and unless the date of dispossession was pleaded and proved, the suit for possession was not competent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the trial court’s judgment was restored. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel on this point. The learned counsel nest submitted that the plaintiffs have not proved any documentary evidence that in the rent suit in fact delivery of possession was affected and the recorded tenant was dispossessed. This question relates to appreciation of evidence which is not permissible under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, it is not a substantial question of law. Both the courts below have found concurrently the title of the plaintiffs. The deficiency or otherwise of the evidences cannot be looked into in second appeal. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal for decision and, therefore, it is not a fit case for admission. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. S.S. ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)