IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.269 of 2005 KAUSHILYA DEVI Wife of Sri Ram Muni Pandey and mother of Late Shambhu Nath Pandey (Minor), resident of village Shahpur P.S. Shahpur Dist. Bhojpur Plaintiff- appellant Versus 1. Nand Kumar Mishra Son of late Ramanand Mishra 2. Bishwanth Mishra son of Nand Kumar Mishra 3. Sidheshwar Nath Mishra 4. Rabindra Nath Mishra 5. Gupta Nath Mishra 6. Umeshnath Mishra 7. Radhika Devi 8. Asha Devi Respondents no. 3 to 6 sons and respondents no. 7 and 8 are daughter of Nand Kumar Mishra All resident of village Bharauli P.S.Sahpur Dist. Bhojpur 9. Karunakar Dubey son of late Ekbal Dubey 10. Ushakar Dubey son of late Ekbal Dubey resident of village and P.O. Gaudarh P.S.Sahpur Dist. Bhojpur 11 Buchiya Devi ( Dead) and her heirs are already on record. Respondents Ist set 12. Bivhakar Dubey son of Ekram Dubey 13. Meera Dubey son of Ekram Dubey 14. Indu Dubey D/o of Ekram Dubey resident of village Gandarh P.S.Sahpur Dist. Bhojpur 15. Sumitra Devi W/o Sharda Nand Tiwari resident of village Dhawri P.S. Bahiya Dist. Bhojpur 16. Ran Vijay Mishra S/o Late Ram Ekbal Mishra resident of village and P.O. Sonbarsha Dist. Bhojpur 17. Jitendra Mishra 18. Sanjoo Devi 19. Sandhya Devi 20. Bindu Devi 21.Punita Devi 22.Baby Kumari 23. Rubi Kumari Respondents no.18 to 23 are daughters of Ran Vijay Mishra resident of village and P.O. Sonbarsha P.S. Karnamepur (Bhojpur) Dist. Bhojpur 24. Janki Devi wife of Ram Narayan Mishra resident of village Prasanda P.S.Sahpur Dist. Bhojpur 25. Suristh Pandey 26. Ram Badan Pandey 27. Ram Muni Pandey 28.Sri Niwas Pandey 29.Ram Niwas Pandey All sons of Bachu Pandey resident of village Shahpur P.O. and P.S.Sahpur Dist. Bhojpur - 2 - Respondents II set 30. Sri Dhrub Narayan Advocate, Panta High court, Patna Respondents III set 31. Vidyasagr Upadhyaya 32. Ramesh Chand Upadhaya Both sons of Sri Chandra Shekhar Upadhaya of village Angara P.S. Piro Dist. Bhojpur At present village and P.O. Shahpur Dist Bhojpur Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr A.B. Ojha, Advocate For the respondents: M/s V. Nath, Md Waliur Rahman, Ashok Kumar, Advocates ------------------- 05 26.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.50 of 1983 which was filed by the plaintiff for partition of her share in Schedules I and II lands of the plaint to the extent of 1/18 and 1/12 respectively and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said Partition suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge II, Ara vide his judgment and decree dated 30.08.1994. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal no.82 of 1994 which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court IV, Bhojpur, vide his judgment and decree dated 06.05.2005. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below have been challenged in the instant second appeal. 5. From the argument as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned - 3 - courts below, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below had very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and had specifically found that in the previous title suit bearing Title suit no. 54 of 1968 the pleader guardian of the minor was active and the written statement was filed by Shambhu Nath Pandey and notices were duly issued and finally suit was decided on contest and not ex parte. It was also found that the minor Shambhu Nath Pandey was before the learned courts below represented by the guardian ad-litem at the trial stage in Title suit no. 54 of 1968 whereas in Title Appeal no.118 of 1979, minor’s father Ram Muni Pandey was his natural guardian and hence the said judgments and decree were legal and proper and clearly made the instant suit bearing Title suit no. 50 of 1983 barred by the principle of res judicata, as all the issues pressed and decided in the previous litigation are also present in the present litigation between the same persons or their successors in interest. 6. In the aforesaid 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. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid