IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.387 of 2008 Shiv Pujan Singh, son of Late Prayag Singh, Resident of village- Bhusunda, Tola Bahora Bigha, P.S. Muffasil, District- Gaya. …. Plaintiff/ Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Gaya. 2. The Anchal Adhikari, Manpur, Anchal, P.S. Muffasil, District- Gaya. ..Defendants/Respondents-Respondent Ist set. 3. Jagdish Manjhi, S/o Jangali Manjhi, Resident of Village- Bhusunda, Tola Bahora, Bigha, P.S. Mufassil, District- Gaya. ..Defendant/Respondent-Respondent 2nd set. 4. Sangram Singh, S/o Late Baliram Singh. 5. Budhan Singh @ Satendra Singh, S/o Late Baliram Singh. 6. Chitralekha Devi W/o Nand Kumar Singh 7. Neelam Devi W/o Krishna Singh 8. Nitu Devi, W/o Sunil Singh 9. Ranjeet Singh, S/o Late Prayag Singh. All residents of Village- Bhusunda Tola Bahora Bigha, P.S. Muffasil, District- Gaya. ..Defendants/Respondents-Respondents 3rd set. ---------------------------------- 4 21.12.2011 Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit and thereafter appeal, for the claim over 14 decimals of land which has been settled with defendant no.3 by the Defendants-State authorities. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation with regard to the relief sought for against the defendant no.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously submitted that both the courts below have erred in law in not appreciating the fact that actually the invasion of rights of the plaintiff by the defendants only occurred in the year 1996 and, therefore, the publication of survey khatian or grant of perwana or the order passed in demarcation case and 144 Cr.P.C. 2 proceeding should not have been taken to gather the starting point of limitation in order to non-suit the plaintiff on that basis. It has been also urged by learned counsel that the plea of limitation is a question of law and as it involves the non-suiting of the plaintiff on that basis, the same may be examined by this court in this second appeal as a substantial question of law. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel and perusing the impugned judgment, I find that both the courts below have relied upon the statement made by the plaintiff in paragraph- 12 of the plaint, wherein he has been stated that the litigation was fomented by the defendant no.3 on the basis of perwana and the same had led to demarcation case and miscellaneous case under Section 144 Cr.P.C. As such, when the plaintiff himself had admitted that he got the knowledge of the perwana in favour of defendant no.3 and the claim of title over the suit land by defendant no.3 in the year 1987-1988, there is clearly no scope for further consideration that the filing of the suit in the year 1996 will not be barred by limitation. As such the submission on behalf of the appellant that the issue of limitation also involves the issue of law has not force in view of the statement by the plaintiff himself in the plaint. As such, there is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Md. Ibrarul ( V. Nath, J.)