IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.894 of 2000 SMT. UMA DEVI & ANR Versus SHAMBHU GOPE & ORS ----------- 18- 6.8.2009 None appears on behalf of the parties. This appeal is under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The plaintiffs are the appellants against a judgment of affirmance, and are aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.3.2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.606 of 1999 (Ramdeo Gope and Ors. v. Shambhu Gope & Ors.). We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs had instituted Title Suit No.75/99 of 84/89 (Ramdeo Gope & ors. v. Shambhu Gope & ors.) for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession over the suit lands mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint, and also claimed compensation amount in respect of plot nos. 242 and 249 in Land Acquisition Case no.22/82-83. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit. The learned trial court framed the following issues for adjudication:- “(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Have the plaintiffs got cause of action for the present suit? (iii)Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession? (iv) Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree as claimed for? (v) To what relief or reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled?” The suit on contest was dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs preferred First Appeal no.606 of 1990 which has on contest been dismissed by the impugned judgment. - 2 - 3. It appears to us that the issues are concluded by concurrent findings of facts which normally cannot be assailed in exercise of jurisdiction under L.P.A. The scope of jurisdiction has been discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Barhu Ram & Ors. vs. Butai Ram & Another [1999 (2) BLJ 818], paragraph 15 of which is relevant and reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- “15. Counsel for the appellants submitted in a Letters Patent Appeal, it is open to this Court not only to consider questions of law, but also to go into questions of fact recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court. While it is true that the special jurisdiction of this Court under Letters Patent does not inhibit the Court from going into questions of fact as well as questions of law, it is equally well settled that findings of fact may be set aside by this Court only if there are good reasons to do so. The appellants must be able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact are either perverse or palpably unreasonable and therefore unsustainable. If the trial Court and the appellate Court have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded findings which can be said to be reasonable, there will be no justification for setting aside such findings of fact. We have, therefore, noticed broadly the evidence on record with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court are either perverse, unreasonable or are based on no evidence or are vitiated for any other reason.” (Emphasis added) 4. In the result, we do not find any ground for interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl - 3 -