IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.103 of 2003 ---- 1. Shanker Dayal Yadav, son of Late Rangila Yadav. 2. Kanhaiya Yadav, son of Late Faujdar Yadav. 3. Mostt. Shanti Devi, wife of Late Kailash Yadav. 4. Akhileshwar Kumar Singh 5. Sanjay Kumar Singh, sons of Late Kailash Yadav. 6. Shyam Bihari Yadav. 7. Brij Bihari Yadav,. 8. Yagon Yadav sons of Late Sarju Pd. Yadav 9. Dhup Narain Yadav 10. Dhanjay Kumar, Both sons of Late Ras Bihari Yadav. 11. Awadh Bihari Yadav 12. Hare Ram Yadav 13. Jairam Yadav 14. Muna Yadav Sons of Late Bhiltu Yadav All residents of Village-Pipari, P.S.-Karonsarai, District-Buxar. --Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Bhola Yadav 2. Jalku Gope 3. Kamala Gope 4. Ghughuli Gope 5. Nageshwar Gope, son of Prahalad Gope. All residents of Village-Pipari, P.S.-Koran Sarai, District-Buxar. --Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ---- For the appellants : M/s Shantosh Kumar Sinha,2, Arvind Kumar and Dr.Vidya Nand Kumar,Advocate. For the respondents : None. ---- 08. 16.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs-appellants- appellants challenging judgments and decree of the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.36 of 1985 which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the suit - 2 - land and also for declaration that revisional survey entry in the name of ancestor of the defendants with respect to the suit land was wrong. The said suit was dismissed by learned Subordinate Judge, II, Buxar on contest with cost vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.1995. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 50 of 1995 which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Buxar on contest with cost by his judgment and decree dated 28.02.2003. The aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them, learned courts below came to a definite finding that defendants were in possession of the suit land openly to the knowledge of all as per their own title and were also in possession of the suit land and accordingly, they or their predecessors were recorded in the revisional survey khatian. Furthermore, the learned courts below specifically found that the suit was filed merely for declaration about their title and also alleged illegalities of the revisional survey entry, but no consequential relief was sought, including possession etc. and hence only declaratory court fees was paid. In the said circumstances, the learned court below rightly came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit is hit by provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief - 3 - Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, nor does this court 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)