IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.348 of 2004 RAJA RAM KUMHAR & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 10/ 02.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 52 of 1994, which was filed by the appellants for declaration of their title and confirmation of their possession and also for challenging the entries of the revisional survey as well as the order of the Collector, Bhojpour in Review Miscellaneous Case No. 45 of 1986-1987 dated 04.03.1991. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif-III, Ara vide judgment and decree dated 11.07.2002, which was challenged by the plaintiffs-appellants in Title Appeal No. 37 of 2002, and the Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.I, Bhojpour also dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. The claim of the plaintiffs-appellants is dependent only one document, namely, a settlement by ex-intermediary (Ext.4) but thereafter neither any rent receipt nor any return nor any order regarding Jamabandi or mutation has been produced, whereas in the revisional survey record of right the suit land has been specifically recorded in the name of the defendant-respondent-State of Bihar as Anabad Sarva 2 Sadharan. In the said circumstances, there is no material to support the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants, rather their claim is falsified by their own document, namely Ext.5, which is a Basgit Purcha with respect to three decimals of land out of the suit land, which was issued by the authorities of the State of Bihar (defendant no.1) on the application of the plaintiffs themselves. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs themselves clearly admitted that the suit land belonged to the State of Bihar and the plaintiffs-appellants had no title and thus no question even of adverse possession could be applicable in the instant case. However, it appears that subsequently the said Purcha under the Bihar State Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act was cancelled by the Collector, Bhojpur vide Ext.9 and the said cancellation order was upheld by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3477 of 1990(Ext.8). In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to seek a remedy challenging any such order of the Collector in the instant suit. All the issues involved have been decided by the learned courts below on the basis of specific materials on record and accordingly the learned courts below arrived at concurrent findings. 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.)