1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.56 of 2007 ----------- Bibi Zalsi, wife of late Ebrahim, resident of village Kashdih, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. ….Defendant-Appellant-Appellant versus . 1. Garibullah, son of Makhan Kunjara 2. Md. Lokman, son of Rashul Mian 3. Kismat Ali 4. Md. Allas 5. Gyas Ali All 3 to 5 sons of late Madi Hussain 6. Bibi Hadisa daughter of late Hadi Hussain, resident of village Kashdih, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. ….Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents. -------- For the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate and Miss Malika Majumdar, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. --------- 07/ 06.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant-appellant challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 69 of 1996, which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession, and also for a declaration that the survey entries in the name of the defendant were illegal as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by learned Munsif-I, Hajipur vide his judgment and decree dated 21.09.2005. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed Title Appeal No. 137 of 2005, which was dismissed on contest by learned Ist Additional 2 District Judge, Hajipur vide his judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are the subject matters of consideration in the instant second appeal. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below on several grounds but from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below concurrently found that the recitals of the Kabuliat (Ext.B) showed that it comprises only plots no. 527 and 566 and on making comparison of both the new and the old maps, it was clear that suit plot no.1183 was not carved out of plot no.527 or 566 rather it was carved out from plots no. 596, 597 and 598, which was the property of the ancestor of the plaintiffs- respondents whose names were duly recorded in the cadastral survey khatiyan. It was also found that other documents produced by the defendant, namely, Ext. A, Ext. C series etc. were also not with respect to the suit plots mentioned above. 6. The learned court of appeal below, after full consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that in a case of civil suit challenging the wrong entry in survey khatiyan, limitation would not run from the date of publication of the khatiyan or even from the date of knowledge of wrong entry rather it runs from the date of invasion of right of party, who is title holder of the land in suit. Hence according to the 3 aforesaid principle of law, the suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be said to be barred by the law of limitation also. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned 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 LXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. . MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )