IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.78 of 2005 Tribhuwan Ram, son of Lalee Ram, resident of village Dharbhagat Parsi, P.S. Karakat, District Rohtas. …(Plaintiff-Appellant)….Appellant versus 1. Harbansh Narayan Tiwary, son of Indrajit Tiwary, resident of village Gorakh Parasai P.S. Karakat, Rohtas. 2. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3. The Anchaladhikari,Karakat Anchal, Karakat, District Rohtas. ….(Defendants-Respondents)-Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant: M/s. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Advocate, Ambuj Narayan Chaubey and Nagendra Dubey, Advocates. For the Respondents : M/s. Om Prakash Upadhyay and Arun Kumar Pandey No.1, Advocates. ----------- 09/ 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.117 of 1980, which was filed by the plaintiff for setting aside judgment and decree dated 12.04.1980 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Sasaram, decreeing Title Suit No.80 of 1976 as well as for permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit bearing Title Suit No.117 of 1980 was also dismissed by the learned Munsif, Bikramganj vide his judgment and decree dated 06.08.1993. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 111 of 1993, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District - 2 - Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.3, Rohtas vide his judgment and decree dated 09.11.2004. The aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that the learned courts below, after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, specifically found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that his Advocate Clerk had played a fraud upon him in collusion with the defendants as would also be apparent from the attending circumstances and subsequent conduct of the plaintiff after knowing about the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 80 of 1976. Both the learned courts below also found that the trial court in Title Suit No.117 of 1980 was not sitting in appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.80 of 19786 and hence having found that the decree passed in Title Suit No.80 of 1976 was well within the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif, the subsequent title suit was rightly dismissed. 6. Both the learned courts below after considering the materials on record also came to the conclusion that in Title Suit No.80 of 1976, the learned Munsif had rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff-appellant under section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 stating that the suit land was a chakout land or a mango orchard on the basis of the entry in the khatiyan and affidavit. It was also found that the record of - 3 - Title Suit No.80 of 1976 shows that the plaintiff did not prefer any appeal or revision against the said order and even after passing of the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.80 of 1976 he did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decree. It further transpires that even in Title Suit No.117 of 1980, out of which this second appeal has arisen, the plaintiff did not produce any material to show that the suit land would be affected by the provision of the aforesaid Act. 7. In the aforesaid facts and 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 the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )