IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.243 of 2008 1. Narendra Prasad s/o Ambika Prasad 2. Renu Devi w/o Narendra Prasad Both resident of Muhalla Sabun toil PS Siwan Dist. Siwan Defendants- Appellants- Appellants Versus 1. Satya Narayan Chaurashiya s/o Anil Chaurashiya 2. Sunil Kumar s/o Anil Chaurashiya 3. Sanni Kumari d/o Anil Chaurashiya 4. Ravi Kumar s/o Anil Chaurashiya 5. Rajani Kumari d/o Satya Narayan Chaurashiya 6. Chanchali Kumari d/o Satya Narayan Chaurashiya All resident of Dharampur Panapur PS Vaishali At present r/o Muhalla Telhatta Bazar PS Siwan Dist. Siwan 7. Indravati Devi w/o Rash Bihari Das D/o late Bishun Prasad r/o Bhawanipur Harishchandra Street Calcutta (W.B.) At present resident of Muhalla Telhatta Bazar PS Siwan Dist. Siwan 8. Usha Devi w/o Mahendra Prasad resident of Gauchha Jamalpur Gogri Dist. Khagaria 9. Billu Devi @ Nillu Devi w/o Raj Krishna resident of Village Hindi Bazar Gorakhpur Dist. Gorakhpur (UP) 10. Kamla Devi d/o Ambika Prasad resident of Muhalla Sabun toli PS Siwan Dist. Siwan 11. Raju Kumar @ Raj Kumar s/o late Ambika Prasad resident of Muhalla Sabun toli PS Siwan Dist. Siwan Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents ----------------------- For the appellants: Mr S.S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr Chandra Kant, Advocate For the respondents: Mr V. Nath, Advocate Mr Manindra Nath Tiwari, Advocate ----------------- 12 29.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.249 of 1984(187/1994) which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents- respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession as - 2 - well as for other ancillary reliefs, with respect to the suit properties. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Additional Munsif I, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 22.03.1995. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal no.36 of 1995 and after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. III), Siwan dismissed the title appeal vide his judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008.The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below specially avers that the question of reunion which was apparent from the fact that the plaintiffs claimed their share as per registered deed of partition of 1956. He further claimed that defendants had exclusive possession over the suit premises and had made construction thereon in the year 1953 but the question of reunion has not been validly considered by the learned courts below. 6. From the pleadings as well as from the materials on record there is no doubt that plaintiffs were co-sharers of the suit properties before partition of 1956. Hence there is no question of any contradiction as they might have been in possession before the partition and had made constructions but the said matter can not be made subject matter of dispute now specially when both the learned courts below have specifically found on the basis of the evidence and pleadings of the - 3 - parties that the plaintiffs have been living in the suit premises and doing their business therein as absolute owners in exclusive possession thereof since the time of partition by registered deed of 1956 and tax and other charges of municipality were being paid by them, hence they have got valid title and possession over the suit land. So far the question of reunion is concerned, it transpires from the impugned judgments that neither the said point was raised by the defendants-appellants earlier nor any issue was framed at their instance in the said case. In the said circumstance, this court does not find any merit in the said point. 7. The other point raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned courts below did not consider the documents of the defendants-appellants, namely, Exhibit F to F/99. However, from paragraph 9 of the learned trial court’s judgment as well as from paragraph 11 of the lower appellate court’s judgment, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below have considered the said exhibits and have found that exhibit F is the letter to Station Master, Siwan, F/1 is the letter to Road Transport Corporation, Patnacity, F/2 is letter to Kamla Prasad, Gopi Krishna, Marufganj, Patna for supply of goods and F/5 to F/99 are counter foil receipts of sales tax. These documents were produced by the defendants only to show their address of ‘Telhatta’ given in the said papers These documents are self-serving documents of the defendants unconcerned with the plaintiffs and hence legally they can not be assumed to be concrete proof of the residence of the defendants specially in view of other evidence considered by the learned courts below on the basis of which they have arrived at concurrent - 4 - findings of facts that the plaintiffs were living in the suit premises as absolute owners in exclusive possession thereof right from the year 1956 till they were illegally dispossessed by the defendants from the suit room in the year 1984 and immediately thereafter the aforesaid title suit was filed. 8. In the said 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 this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid