IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.198 of 2004 MOHAMMAD ALIL & ORS. Versus JIMDAR SAH ----------- 07/ 15.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No.109 of 1985 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land and also for removal of structures erected by the defendants-appellants. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif-II, Chapra vide judgment and decree dated 17.07.1990 which was challenged by the defendants-appellants in Title Appeal No.75 of 1990 which was dismissed by the learned Additiional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.III, Saran at Chapra vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants. Both the learned courts below have found that defendant no.2 himself admitted the plaintiff’s case of partition while deposing as D.W.9. The learned courts below also found that the defendants could not prove their claim that the Karmchari lost his original sale deed and the deed of correction and neither any action against the Karmchari or any report could be shown. It was also held that defendants’ witnesses could not state the date of defendants’ possession, whereas the plaintiff fully established by his evidence that he came in possession on 07.06.1978 on the basis of sale deed and he was subsequently dispossessed by the defendants on 07.04.1982 and against his dispossession, the wife of the plaintiff filed a petition before S.D.O. which was clearly proved by the evidence. The learned courts below also found that plaintiff established his title over the suit property on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed(Exhibit-2/C) and that defendants subsequently dispossessed him illegally and made structures and hence, the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession after removal of the said structures. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, which are based on specific finding of facts relying upon the materials available on record and hence, no substantial question of law appears to be involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. harish/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)