IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.428 of 2009 Awadh Lal Yadav, S/o Late Gutti Yadav, R/o Village- Bela Yakub, P.S.-Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga. ----------(Plaintiff-Appellant)-Appellant. Versus 1.Ram Narayan Yadav, S/o Ram Saran Yadav. -----------(Defendant Ist Party-Respondent Ist Party) 2.Moti Yadav. 3.Shiv Narayan Yadav. Both Sons of Late Muni Yadav. 4.Satrughan Yadav, S/o Mahabir Yadav. ----(Defendant 2nd Party-Respondent 2nd Party) 5. Mahesh Yadav, S/o Late Yogi Yadav. ---------------------(Defendant 3rd Party-Respondent 3rd Party) All Residents of Village- Bela Yakub, P.S.-Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga.---------------------Respondetns. ---------- 5. 16.08.2011 Heard Mr. Devnarayan Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Darbhanga in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2007 passed by Munsif I, Darbhanga in Title Suit No. 04 of 2005. 2 The relevant case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that the suit land measuring 4 decimal of Plot No.280 of Khata No. 151 originally belonged to his great-grand-father Ghana Yadav, who died leaving behind three sons namely Joknan Yadav, Ram Lal Yadav and Raghuni Yadav out of whom Raghuni Yadav died issueless. The plaintiff belongs to the branch of Ram Lal Yadav whereas the defendants belong to the branch of Joknan Yadav. It is the case of the plaintiff that there had been partition in the family and in that partition the suit plot was allotted to the branch of Ram Lal Yadav and since thereafter it is coming in possession of his branch including the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff he was in service outside at Jalpaiguri and during the period of absence from the village the defendants encroached upon the suit plot, demolished the construction thereupon and made a new construction over the same. After returning from service the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the suit plot and on their refusal the plaintiff has been compelled to file the present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement 3 contesting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendants have asserted that the suit plot is their ancestral khatiyani land and they have been coming in peaceful possession of the same on that basis and the plaintiff has no exclusive title and possession over the suit plot. The trial court had taken notice of the fact that the plaintiff had produced no documentary evidence in his support and has also adduced no evidence to establish that the defendants have encroached upon the suit land. After analyzing the oral evidence the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove title over the suit land and has also failed to prove that the defendants have encroached over the suit land. The plaintiff thereafter filed Title Appeal No. 28 of 2007 but belatedly and had also filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellate court below reconsidered the issues as well as the evidence on record and has recorded the finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his contention on the basis of cogent evidence. The appellate court has further held that no sufficient cause could be shown for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consequently dismissed the appeal. 4 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in this appeal has submitted that both the courts below have failed to take notice that the defendants had failed to adduce any evidence in support of their case and have failed to justify their possession over the suit land. It has been further submitted that in absence of evidence on the part of the defendants the learned court below ought to have accepted the case of the plaintiff and should have decreed the suit. It has also been pointed out that the learned appellate court should have condoned the delay as there was sufficient cause shown by plaintiff/appellant therein for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. After going through the impugned judgments and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel it appears that the plaintiff has come before the court asserting his title on the basis of previous partition and allotment of the suit land in the exclusive share of his great grand father and has further alleged encroachment by the defendants over the said land during his absence. Both the courts below examined the evidence available on the record and have come to the concurrent finding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his exclusive title over 5 the suit land as claimed by him by cogent evidence. It is well established that the plaintiff is to stand on his own legs and cannot take benefit of the failure of the defendants in producing evidence or proving their own case. The law laid down by the Apex Court, in this regard, in AIR 1954 SC526 still holds good. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there does not arise any substantial question of law in this appeal for consideration, which is accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)