IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.305 of 2009 Ravindra Baitha Versus Mohammad Islam Hajam & Ors ---------------------------------- 11 15-11-2011 Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment of affirmance. The suit of the plaintiff has been filed for declaration of his title over the suit land and further for declaration that the defendants have got no title over the same. The plaintiff has come before this Court with the case that the suit land originally belonged to Babu Bisheshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Sheo Kumar Prasad Singh who donated it to Bihar Bhoodan Jagya Committee and the said Committee, in turn, settled the land with the plaintiff. However, the defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff assailing the story of donation by Babu Bisheshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Sheo Kumar Prasad Singh and have also challenged the right of the Bihar Bhoodan Jagya Committee over the suit land and its settlement by grant of a certificate to the plaintiff. The discernible issue from the pleadings of the parties is whether the fact of donation of the land by the donors, as per the plaintiff’s case, to the Bihar Bhoodan Jagya Committee has been established because the said fact of donation is indicative of the right and title to the suit land of the donee and thereafter to the plaintiff. The defendants’ case that the land being Kabristhan and used by the Muslims is to be considered thereafter. Both the courts below have considered the said issue 2 regarding the donation of the land by the donors, Babu Bisheshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Sheo Kumar Prasad Singh to the Committee and have come to the concurrent finding of fact that such donation has not been established. The perusal of the impugned judgments of both the courts below shows that both the parties had led their evidence and the findings have been arrived at after considering those evidence in view of rival submissions. Even at the appellate stage the plaintiff has made a prayer under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for adducing additional evidence in the appeal in order to substantiate the fact of donation by the donors as claimed by him, but the learned appellate court below has concluded that the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiff was not relevant as the same did not support the story of donation by Babu Bisheshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Sheo Kumar Prasad Singh. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the certificate granted by Bihar Bhoodan Yagya Committee(Ext.2) is in itself sufficient and conclusive proof of title acquired by the plaintiff over the suit land. It has been urged that the donation to Bihar Bhoodan Yagya Committee and affirmation is done after elaborate enquiry and the same cannot be challenged after the lapse of several years. It has been further submitted that both the courts below did not properly appreciate the material evidence of the plaintiff and have also not recorded the finding that the suit land was being used by the defendants as Kabristhan and as such the matter has been left at that. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant 3 that the learned courts below should have decided the issue finally in one or the other way. The fact that the donation to Bihar Bhoodan Jagya Committee is accepted by affirmation by elaborate enquiry as provided under the relevant Act and the said fact regarding donation cannot be reopened thereafter. However, this applies only to the persons who were parties to that proceeding and enquiry under the Act or to the persons claiming through donors and is not applicable to the persons who were not parties to the said enquiry and who challenges the very fact of donation by the donors. On the basis of evidence on record it has been found by both the courts below that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case that the suit land had been donated by the donors as claimed by him to the Bihar Bhoodan Yagya Committee and as such there is no illegality in the findings of both the courts below that the donation in fact has not been established. Reappreciation of evidence at the second appellate stage is not permissible unless the findings are shown to be not based upon the evidence or against the evidence on record or against some settled legal principles of law. No such infirmity appears in the judgments and decrees. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)