IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.209 of 2009 Ayodhya Prasad Sharma, Son of Lakshmi Narayan Sharma, R/o Village-Dumari, P.O.- Dumarai, P.S.-Simari, District- Buxar, At present posted as Forman Ghahan Krishi Zila Yojna, Bhojpur at Arrah, District-Bhojpur. -----------------Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. 2. Up Krishi Nideshak(Prachetra)Arra, Bhojpur. -----------Defendants/Respondents/Respondents. ----------- 5. 20.09.2011 Heard Mr.S.K.Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Ara in Title Appeal No. 32/02 affirming the judgment and decree of Munsif II, Ara dated 30.05.2001 in Title Suit No.233/1994. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal and has lost in both the courts below. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that his date of birth of is 10.03.1944 and further for declaration that the letter dated 02.02.1994(Annexure-1 to the plaint) is void, illegal and 2 without jurisdiction. In view of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the primal issue in the suit was the date of birth of the plaintiff which according to him was 10.03.1944 and not 10.03.1937 which is relied upon by the defendants. The plaintiff adduced his evidence in support of his contention and has also produced his school leaving certificate alongwith other material documentary evidence to establish his date of birth to be 10.03.1944. Both sides also examined their witnesses in support of their respective cases. The trial court after considering the pleading, evidence and submissions of the parties came to the finding that the date of birth of the plaintiff was 10.03.1937 and dismissed the suit. 3. The plaintiff preferred appeal and reiterated his pleading and evidence. From the impugned judgment of the appellate court it appears that the evidence of the plaintiff upon whom the burden of proof lies to establish his case, have been meticulously considered and analyzed and thereafter the appellate court has also come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his date of birth to be 10.03.1944. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 appellant has firstly submitted that the lower court records are required in order to persuade this Court that the evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff have been misappreciated by the courts below. It has been further submitted that according to the relevant rules of the Bihar Service Code, the plaintiff could not have been appointed in service if his date of birth is taken to be 10.03.1937 as 25 years is the minimum age limit fixed for appointments in the government departments and on this basis the learned counsel has submitted that both the courts below have erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and decree against the plaintiff. 5. From the perusal of the judgment of both the courts below, it appears that the findings have been recorded after consideration of the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence of the parties. The reappraisal of evidence in the second appellate jurisdiction is not permitted unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be perverse. Merely because a third view may be possible on the basis of evidence on record will not be a ground for interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. During the course of the argument nothing could be 4 pointed out in the judgment of both the courts below to establish that the findings recorded therein are perverse. As such the prayer of the learned counsel for calling for the lower court records at this stage is misconceived. Further the averments made in the plain, as produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, are completely silent regarding the fact that the plaintiff had been appointed on a pensionable post under the Government. In a civil suit, the issues are decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence are to be considered in the light of those pleadings. In absence of the necessary and specific pleading in this regard it is difficult to consider evidence and reach to a conclusion. Moreover this submission does not appear to have been raised in both the courts below. 6. The issues arising between the parties have been concluded by the concurrent findings of fact and there does not appear to be any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)