IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.83 of 2005 Chandra Bhushan Prasad alias Chandra Bhushan Prasad Sharma, Son of Triyogi Prasad Sharma, resident of village Khauna, P.S. Ghoshi, District Gaya, now Jehanabad at present village + P.S. Rajgir, District Nalanda ……..Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Versus Ram Kumar Prasad, son of Mathura Prasad, resident of village Sarnama, P.S. Barh, District Patna, at present village + P.S. Rajgir, District Rajgir, District Nalanda…Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. ----------- For the appellant : M/s S.S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Ram Kumar Sharma and Mrigendra Kumar, Advocates. For the respondent: M/s Laxmi Narayan Das and Akhilesh Dutta Verma, Advocates. ----------- 05/ 04.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the impugned judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 123 of 1983, which was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract as well as for confirmation of possession and alternatively for delivery of possession, if found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit with respect to the suit land and also for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge III, Nalanda at Biharsharif by his judgment and decree dated 01.08.1989. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal No. 5 of 1993 (16 of 2004), but the said title appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Nalanda, by his judgment and decree dated 13.01.2005. The instant - 2 - second appeal has been filed challenging the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 5. From the averments of the parties as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, both the learned courts below arrived at concurrent findings that the agreement for sale relied upon by the plaintiff was forged and fabricated and was never executed by the respondent and that no consideration amount or even advance was ever paid by the appellant. The said findings are clearly findings of fact dependent upon the respective pleadings and evidence of the parties and they are sufficient to demolish the entire claim of the plaintiff-appellant irrespective of other points involved in the matter. 6. In the said circumstances and in view of the concurrent findings of fact, this Court cannot legally interfere with 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 XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S.N. Hussain, J.)