IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.183 of 2005 1. Shiv Nath Ram 2. Krishnadeo Ram 3. Krit Ram All sons of Mahendra Ram(deceased) 4. Sunaina Devi, daughter of Mahendra Ram(deceased) All of village-Barharwa Kala Semra Tola, Tappa, Daullata, Pargana-Majhaua, P.S. Harsidhi, District-East Champaran. … Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. V e r s u s 1. Dwarika Mishra son of Nisan Mishra 2. Nathuni Mishra 3. Vinod Mishra 2 & 3 are sons of Late Chandrika Mishra 4. Mulchan Mishra son of Nishan Mishra 5. Gobardhan Mishra son of Late Devi Mishra 6. Surendra Mishra S/o Late Devi Mishra All of village Barharwa Kala, P.O. Kushar, P.S. Harsidhi, at present Kotwa, District-East Champaran. ….Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents 1st Set. 7. Bharat Ram 8. Awadh Ram Both sons of Late Munra Ram Resident of village-Barharwa Kala, Semra Tola, Tappa-Daullata, Pargana-Majhaua, P.S. Harsidhi, District-East Champaran. …..Defendants-Appellants-Respondents 2nd Set. For the appellants : M/s A.Kr. Sharma and R. Prasad, Advocates. For the respondents: None. ---------- 06/ 17.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 37 of 1994, which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for declaration of their title, recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was decreed on contest with cost by 2 the learned Munsif, Sadar, Motihari vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2003. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendants-appellants in Title Appeal No. 110 of 2003 (74/04), which was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Motihari vide his judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005. Both the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the averments as well as the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that after full consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, both the learned courts below came to the concurrent finding that the original owner was Vidyapad Chamar, who died in the year 1925 leaving behind a widow Hiriya, who had limited right in his property and also leaving behind a minor grand- son as his legal heir, whereafter the said Hiriya executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs’ predecessor who came in possession of the suit land as exclusive owner and paid rents regularly and the heirs of Vidyapad Chamar never challenged the said deed or the possession of the plaintiffs. The learned courts below also found that the plaintiffs filed series of rent receipts (Ext.1 series) which showed that their ancestor Bishnudeo Mishra was mutated over the suit plot and the landlord also granted receipt in his favour and thereafter government rent receipts were also issued in their names. 6. It was also found that the defendants completely failed 3 in rebutting the entries of Ext.7, namely revisional survey khatiyan in the name of the plaintiffs, which were never challenged and they also failed to prove their title over the suit property. So far the plea of the plaintiffs regarding their possession and dispossession was concerned, the learned courts below found that Exts.5/c, 5/d and 7 along the evidence of PWs.2,3,4,5,6 and 7 fully supported the claim of plaintiffs’ possession prior to their dispossession as claimed. Thus it was held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their title and also the story of their dispossession by the defendants. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submits that Vidyapad Chamar had no relation at all with Parsad Chamar and Vidyapad Chamar had only one wife Jamunia and had no wife in the name of Hiriya and hence Hiriya had no right to transfer any of his properties. He further submits that rent receipts in favour of the defendants were produced but they were not relied upon by the learned courts below. In this respect, it may be stated that both the learned courts below after considering the matter in detail came to the concurrent finding of fact that Hiriya was the widow of Vidyapad Chamar and on that basis she had executed the sale deed. So far the rent receipts are concerned, the rent receipts produced by the plaintiffs were based on orders of mutation which had been produced as exhibit in the suit, whereas the rent receipts produced by the defendants were not on the basis of any order of mutation as no order of mutation had been produced in the court below. In the said circumstances, the claims of the defendants-appellants were 4 absolutely frivolous and baseless and the learned courts below rightly rejected their claim and allowed the claim of the plaintiffs- respondents. In any view of the matter, this court under provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot take a different view with respect to the findings of fact based on valid and proper evidence. 8. In the said circumstances, 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)