IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.205 of 2009 RAM RAJ SINGH son of late Neur Singh, resident of village Sarayan, Police Station Rajpur, District Buxar… .. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Anchal Adhikari, Rajpur, P.S. Rajpur, 3. Ram Piyar Singh son of Chhattu Singh, resident village Sarayan, P.S. rajpur, District Buxar, Defendants-Respondents-Respondents For the Appellant: Mr. Bishwa Nath Choudhary,Advocate For Respondent No 3: Mr. Anil Kumar Roy, Advocate ----------- 4 14.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2009 passed in Title Appeal No. 40 of 1997 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.05.1997 passed by the Munsif II, Buxar in Title Suit No. 115 of 1989. Title Suit No. 115 of 1989 has been brought by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration that the entry with regard to the suit land (fully described in Schedule II of the plaint), which has been carved out from the plaintiff’s land (as described in Schedule I of the plaint), and has been entered in the name of the defendant-State of Bihar 2 in the Revisional Survey Records of right as well as in the Khatian prepared by the Consolidation Authorities, is wrong. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the land described in Schedule I of the plaint belonged to him, as the same was settled in his favour by the ex-landlord in 1359 Fasli by granting receipts. At the time of vesting of the Zamindari the return was also filed showing the plaintiff as raiyat and since settlement, the plaintiff is coming in peaceful possession of land in question. The plaintiff has alternatively raised the plea of acquiring the title over the suit land by adverse possession. Further case is that the plaintiff was regularly paying the rent to the State of Bihar, however, new survey plot nos. 281 and 311 under Khata No. 204A, which have been carved out from old plot nos. 198 and 192, have wrongly been shown to be belonging to the State of Bihar in the Revisional Survey Records of right. Similar error has been committed by the Consolidation Authorities and a wrong entry has also been made in the records of right prepared by the Consolidation Authorities. The State of Bihar contested the suit and 3 questioned the right of the ex-landlord to settle the land as well as the genuineness of the receipts, whereby, as per the claim of the plaintiff, the lands in question were settled in his favour by the ex-landlord. It has been stated that the plaintiff had never come in possession of the suit land and entry has been made in the records of right prepared by the Consolidation Authorities. Further case of the defendant is that no objection was ever raised by the plaintiff either during the revisional survey operation or during the consolidation proceedings. One Ram Piyar Singh was also added as intervenor in the suit, who though admitted that the ex-landlord of the land was Murli Prasad Singh, but has submitted that the land concerned was in use of general public and was never being cultivated by the ex-landlord nor was the same in his personal possession. It has been stated on his behalf that the ex- landlord left this land for public use and he executed a Hukumnama to that effect in the year 1948, and, thus, the story of settlement of the land concerned in favour of the plaintiff in 1359 Fasli was baseless. A proceeding was initiated before the DCLR, Buxar, wherein it has been found that the receipt produced by the plaintiff was forged 4 one as it does not bear any signature or thumb impression of the ex-landlord and the similar forgery was found in the copy of the return filed on behalf of the plaintiff before him. The suit land is described as Parti Kadim in old and new revisional survey records of right as well as in Consolidation Khatian and the plaintiff, who was living in the same village, had never raised any objection regarding such entry. The trial court upon consideration of the materials on record including the evidence led on behalf of the parties has come to the conclusion that Exts. B and C produced at the behest of the intervenor-respondent, which are counter-foil of the receipt granted by the ex-landlord of the year 1952-53 and the concerned Zamabandi, completely falsify the case of the settlement in favour of the plaintiff. It has also come to the conclusion that the signature of the agent of the ex-landlord, Deep Narayan Lal, differs from the plaintiff’s documents, Exts. 9 and 9/A with Ext. B. Ext. 9 and Ext. 9/A do not bear the seal of the S.D.O., Buxar. The trial court has not found any reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the DCLR, Buxar in Miscellaneous Case No. 14/82-83, who has stated that the 5 documents are forged and fabricated. Thus, the trial court finally recorded a finding that since the plaintiff could not prove his title over the land in question, there was no question to record any entry in the name of the plaintiff in the survey Khatiyan as well as Khatiyan prepared by the Consolidation Authorities. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was challenged by the plaintiff-appellant in Title Appeal No. 40 of 1997. However, the first appellate court also recorded a finding that the appellant has failed to prove the story of settlement in his favour by the ex-landlord in the year 1359 Fasli and consequently, the plaintiff has further failed to prove that the survey entries in the records of right are incorrectly made in favour of the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the documents produced by the plaintiff-appellant i.e. the old receipts etc. have not been considered in proper perspective by the courts below and both the courts below should have considered the factum of his continuous possession over the suit land whereas learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that both these questions have been answered by the courts below and there has been 6 concurrent findings of both the courts in this regard. This Court also does not find any substance in the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant since both the courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove his title and continuous possession over the suit land. There is concurrent finding of fact that the documents produced by the plaintiff were not believable, as they do not even bear the signature or thumb impression of the ex-landlord and the return produced by him does not bear the seal and signature of the concerned SDO. There has been finding recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff was not found in continuous possession over the suit land. In above view of the matter, since it is apparent that the case is concluded by the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, I do not find any merit in this appeal. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)