1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.22 of 2007 1. (a)Immamuddin Hassan (b)Quammudin Hassan Both sons of late Idu Mian, residents of village Pipra, P.S. Goutam Budh Nagar, District Siwan. (c) Jainab, daughter of late Indu Mian, W/o Ali Jan, resident of Village Bhelpur, P.s. Barharia, District Siwan. 2. Sohibal Mian @ Sohibal Mian Hajam 3. Imam Hassan alias Imam Hassan Hajam Both residents of village Pipra, P.S. Goutam Budh Nagar, District Siwan. ……Defendants-Appellants-Appellants -versus- 1. Kishundeo Ram 2. Kashinath Ram 3. Vishwakarma Ram 4. Vinay Kumar Ram 5. Gorakhnath Ram All sons of late Muni Lal Ram 6. Bhagmani Devi, D/o late Muni Lal Ram 7. Bachi Devi widow of late Muni Lal Ram All residents of village Pipra, P.S. Goutam Budh Nagar, District Siwan. …Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents Ist set. 8. Bhagwatia Devi, wife of late Ghinaban Ram 9. Sudarshan Ram 10. Parsan Ram 11. Surendra Ram All Nos. 9 to 22 are sons of late Ghinaban Ram 12. Sursatia Devi 13. Parbatia Devi Both D/o late Ghinaban Ram 14. Kanhaiya Choubey @ Madhusudan Choubey, son of Kishun Choubey 15. Purbanti Devi 16. Alap Devi 17. Chandrawati Devi All Nos. 15 to 17 are daughters of late Sri Kishun Choubey All nos. 8 to 27 are residents of village Pipra, P.S. Goutam Budh Nagar, District Siwan. ……Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 2nd set --------- For the Appellants : M/s. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Anil Kumar Singh-I and Amir Alam, Advocates. For the Respondents: M/s V. Nath and Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocates. -------- 08/ 11.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned 2 counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 146 of 1989, which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents 1st set for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession with respect to the suit land and also for delivery of possession as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The aforesaid title suit was decreed in part by the learned Munsif-I, Siwan, vide his judgment and decree dated 16.06.2001. Against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 28 of 2001, which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-1, Siwan, vide his judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006. 5. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for 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 full appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of the parties, it was held that Khelau was the son of Kukur and was not his nephew. It was also found after consideration of the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants that they had been able to prove their right and title over the 2 kathas 10 dhurs out of the suit land, whereas, they 3 have failed to prove their title and possession over the entire suit land. It was also found that with regard to the remaining 1 katha 5 dhurs of land, the plaintiffs have been able to prove their title. So far question of encroachment is concerned, it was found that no such encroachment was found. 6. The learned court of appeal below also considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail and came to the conclusion that Ghinawan was entitled to execute his two shares in the disputed land but he had executed Exts. B/1 and B/2 with regard to the entire three shares of Khelau and hence Exts. B/1 and B/2 were not binding upon the plaintiffs and the said documents were clearly void. It was also found that the defendants had not claimed title on the basis of adverse possession and furthermore it was also held that since the parties were co-sharers, principle of adverse possession would also not be attracted. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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 XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )