IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.245 of 2005 1. MAHASUNDARI DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE NAGESHWAR SINGH @ LOKA SINGH 2. RUBI KUMARI, D/O LATE NAGESHWARI SINGH @ LOKA SINGH, WIFE OF AKHILESH SINGH, VILLAGE- NAWADAH, P.S. RUPAW, DISTRICT-NAWADAH. 3. SANTOSH SINGH 4. SATRUGHAN SINGH BOTH THE SONS OF LATE NAGESHWAR SINGH @ LOKA SINGH, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TIURI, P.O.TIURI, P.S. MONPUR, DISTRICT- NALANDA ..........PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-APPLLANT. Versus 1. RAJ KUMAR SINGH 2. RAJ KISHORE SINGH 3. GOPAL SINGH ALL SONS OF LATE BRAHMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-TIURI, P.O. TIURI, P.S. MONPUR, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 4. SAHDEO MAHTO, SON OF PREMAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHASPUR, TOLA MAHAL- TIURI, P.O.TIURI, P.S. MONPUR, DISTRICT- NALANDA. 5. SHIV KUMAR RAUT, S/O LATE BIHARI RAUT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-TIURI, P.O.TIURI, P.S. MONPUR, DISTRICT-NALANDA. .......DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT ----------- 06/ 23.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. This Second appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 69 of 1991 which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for declaration that sale deed dated 6.11.1990 executed by one set of defendants in favour of other sets of defendants was forged, - 2 - fabricated, nonest without consideration and void and alternatively for recovery of possession, injunction, mesen profit etc. The said title suit was dismissed on cost without cost by the learned Munsif vide his judgment and decree dated 12.04.1995. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 11 of 1995 (06/2004) which was also dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. I, Nalanda vide his judgment and decree dated 21.05.2005. Both the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant Second appeal. From the averments as well as materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of learned courts below it transpires that after full consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties the learned courts below concurrently held that the plaintiffs based their claim on an oral sale deed dated 15.06.1945 by the Ex-Landlord in the name of Sudama Devi the mother of plaintiff no. 1. However, the learned courts below found that there was no reliable material to support the contentions of the plaintiffs as Ext.2 and Ext.3 series produced by the plaintiffs were contradictory to each other and the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence clearly went on to show that the suit land was not settled with Sudama Devi by the Landlord. - 3 - So far the claim of defendants is concerned, the learned courts below also came to concurrent findings of fact that both the defendants were raising their claim on the basis of a Hukumnama of 1949 (25th Jeth 1356 fasli) but the said Hukumnama along with the alleged rent receipt clearly showed that they were with respect to Khata No. 635 and not with respect to Khata No. 636 and hence the claim of defendants was also not sustainable in the eye of law. It was also found that the other oral or documentary evidence filed on behalf of the defendants could not support their claim. In the said circumstances, the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that both the plaintiffs and defendants who were Gotias were trying to get evidence and order of the Court by misleading the Court against the actual owner of the suit land as the land in question having not been settled to either plaintiffs or defendants, had clearly vested in the state of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act when the right of Ex-intermediry vested in the State of Bihar and was recorded as such. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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.Sb/- (S.N. Hussain, J.)