T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.65 of 2009 Khokha Rajak son of late Uchi Rajak, R/o village Nandlalpur P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur……Plaintiff-Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Dayanand Singh son of late Raj Narayan Singh, R/o village Nandlalpur,P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur …Defendant -Respondent-Respondent 2. Matra Rajak son of late Uchi Rajak, R/o village Nandlalpur, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur …..Plaintiff-Appellant- Respondent. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Subhash Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------------- 8 15.09.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2008 passed in Title appeal No. 19 of 2007 by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No. –V, Bhagalpur affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2007, passed by Munsif- Ist, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 7 of 1993. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession on the assertion that the plaintiffs are agnates of the recorded tenants and as such they have got their exclusive title and are coming in possession of the suit land. The defendant appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that they are not the agnates of the recorded tenants. Both the courts below after considering the evidence on record and submission of the parties disbelieved the story of the plaintiff. The core issue between the parties is whether the plaintiff is agnate of the recorded tenants who were admittedly Madho and Anandi 2 as per Ext.C/1 which is the cadastral survey of Khatiyan. Of the disputed land. In the said exhibit the recorded tenants has been described as “Khatri” by caste. In view of the specific denial of their status, the burden of proof was clearly upon the plaintiff to establish his case as pleaded. From the perusal of judgment of both the courts below it appears that plaintiff had failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish his relationship with the recorded tenants. The plaintiff is admittedly “Dhobi” by caste but has also failed to plead and prove that “Dhobi” and “Khatri” are the same caste in order at least to connect him with the recorded tenant. In absence of any specific pleading, Ext.1 and Ext.1/A have been rightly held by both the courts below of no assistance to the plaintiff. Moreover, Ext.2 is a sale deed of the year 1915 executed by the recorded tenants which shows that the recorded tenants had described them by surname “Singh” but it is also not the case of the plaintiff that the persons belonging to “Dhobi” or “Rajak” caste also use the surname “Singh”. The case of adverse possession as asserted by the plaintiff has been also rightly not accepted by the courts below in view of the claim of title by inheritance. The appellant has failed to establish any perversity in the findings of the courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. M.Rahman (V. Nath, J)