IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.411 of 1998 1. Ram Sundar Yadav, son of late Lalit Yadav 2. Nawal Kishore Yadav 3. Umesh Yadav Both sons of Ram Sundar Yadav 4. Shambhu Yadav, son of Ram Sundar Yadav All residents of village Kothiya, P.O. Kothiya, P.S. and District Khagaria. ….Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants versus 1. Rangilal Sahu, son of late Tauzi Sahu resident of village Kothiya, P.O. Kothiya, P.S. and District Khagaria. 2.(i) Ram Narayan Yadav (ii) Rati Lal Yadav (iii) Bhola Yadav (iv) Bharat Yadav Sons of Haudeo Yadav (v)(a) Uttam Yadav (b) Ranjit Yadav (c) Amit Yadav sons of Gorelal Yadav. All residents of village Kothiya, P.O. Kothiya, P.S. and District Khagaria. …Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Pravin Chandra Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent no.1:Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate For other Respondents: None. --------- 24/ 27.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 44 of 1984, which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration of their title and recovery of possession and also for declaration that the registered deed dated 15.12.1993 executed by defendants 2nd party in favour of defendants 1st party was neither valid nor was acted upon nor it was - 2 - binding upon the plaintiffs and also for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional Munsif, Khagaria, vide judgment and decree dated 16.06.1998. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.20 of 1989, which was also dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Khagaria, vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.1988. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have very carefully gone into the pleadings and evidence of the parties, whereafter they have come to definite findings that deed of sale dated 26.09.1972 was executed in favour of the plaintiffs by Jagtarni Jha, but no document of title including deed of sale or deed of settlement or any other document has been produced to show that Jagtarni Jha had acquired any right, title or interest in the said property. The plaintiffs were unable to produce any rent receipt of the State of Bihar in favour of Jagtarni Jha for a period prior to the said sale deed and only one receipt i.e. Ext.2/a dated 18.07.1973 in the name of aforesaid Jagtarni Jha for 3 bighas 5 kathas and 16 dhurs was produced, which was clearly unreliable. The only other document, which was produced to prove the alleged right, title and interest of Jagtarni Jha, was Ext.3, which is Jamabandi, with respect to 3 bighas 5 kathas and - 3 - 16 dhurs of land mentioned in the name of Jagtarni Jha, but neither the number of any khata or khesra were mentioned therein, due to which it cannot be said that the said Jamabandi was with respect to the suit land. 6. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below were quite justified in holding that the said Jagtarni Jha , namely, vendor of the plaintiffs, had no valid right, title or interest over the suit land and hence on the basis of a deed of transfer by the said Jagtarni Jha, the plaintiffs acquired no right, title or interest in the suit land as the said document was inoperative and invalid. 7. 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )