IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.137 of 2007 Shrimati Sushila Devi w/o Shri Deo Narayan Mandal resident of Mohalla Nayagaon Jamalpur (Thakurbari Gali) P.S. Jamalpur at present East Colony, Jamalpur Dist. Munger Plaintiff- Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Ramchandra Mandal s/o Late Halkhori Mandal 2. Pramod Kumar Mandal 3. Niranjan Kumar Mandal 4. Sanjay Kumar Mandal 5. Pankaj Kumar Mandal 6. Rajesh Kumar Mandal All sons of Shri Ramchandra Mandal resident of Mohalla Nayagaon Jamalpur (Thakurbari Gali) P.O. Jamalpur P.S. East Colony, Jamalpur Dist. Munger Defendants – Respondents-Respondents --------------- For the appellant: Mr Harshwardhan Sahay, Advocate ------------- 04/ 22.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.9 of 2001 which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of her title over suit land and also for recovery of possession along with other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by Munsif I, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs- appellants filed Title Appeal no.32 of 2005 which was also dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No. IV, Munger, vide his judgment and decree dated 20.042007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. - 2 - 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below on the ground that the court of appeal below, while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, made out a third case of common passage of the suit property which was claimed by neither of the parties. It will be pertinent to note that the plaintiff was claiming her title over the suit premises and hence onus was squarely upon her to prove her title by valid and reliable evidence. However, both the courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove her title over the suit land whereas the respondents also could not prove that they acquired right and title over the suit premises on the basis of adverse possession over the suit land. With respect to the aforesaid findings of possession, findings of the courts below are concurrent findings of facts. 6. Furthermore, when main relief of title claimed by the plaintiff was rejected by both the courts below, the question whether the suit property remained for common use of all the persons concerned was merely a resultant point which was decided on the basis of the finding arrived at by the court of appeal below after full appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties which was done in accordance with law by the final court of fact. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)