IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.114 of 2005 1. Kashi Mandal, son of Kutai Mandal. 2. Suro Mandal, son of Kutai Mandal. 3. Prakash Mandal. 4. Naresh Mandal. 5. Bibhishan Mandal. 6. Jai Kishore Mandal. Nos.3 to 6 are sons of Late Aghori Mandal. 7. Smt. Kaitki Devi wife of Late Aghori Mandal. 8. Chander Mandal, son of Kutai Mandal. 9. Most. Jhalo Devi wife of Late Pago Mandal. 10. Ram Bilash Mandal. 11. Shyam Mandal. 12. Devenandan Mandal. Nos. 10 to 12 are sons of Late Pago Mandal. All residents of Village- Kharagpur, Police Station- Haveli Kharagpur, District-Munger. 13. Gita Devi wife of Nageshwar Mandal. resident of Village-Karma Chack, Police Station- Sangrampur, District- Munger. ..........Defendants/ Appellants/Appellants. Versus Ram Bhaju Mandal, son of Late Antu Mandal, resident of Village- Rataitha, Police Station- Kharagpur, District- Munger.............................Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent. ----------- 7. 28.07.2009. Heard learned counsel for the appellants who have questioned the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, F.T.C.2, Munger, whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.06.1999 passed by the learned Munsif, Munger, in Title Suit No. 25 of 1989. The question sought to be agitated is whether the courts below were correct in holding that the defendants had no right, title and interest over the suit properties and that the plaintiff had acquired right by way of purchase from Kari through a sale deed. The appellants plaintiffs never raised the questions in the courts below regarding the fact that Kari had no right to sell the - 2 - property and that the sale deed was not valid. Not having raised these issues in the courts below the appellants can not raise these issues now since there are concurrent findings of the two courts below that the plaintiff had acquired right, title and interest over the suit properties and they also confirmed his possession thereupon. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the concurrent findings of the courts below, I find no substantial question of law which is required to be considered in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. U.K. (Abhijit Sinha,J)