IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.108 of 2004 HARE RAM SAH & ORS Versus DEENDAYAL PODAR & ORS ----------- 13/ 07-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 58 of 1989 which was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents for declaration of their title over the suit lands , for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction along with other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed by the learned Additional Munsif, Khagaria by judgment and decree dated 31.3.1995 which was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 5 of 1995 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, IIIrd, Khagaria vide his judgment and decree dated 21.4.2004. In the instant second appeal the defendants have challenged the aforesaid judgments and decree. The claim of the plaintiffs was based on the fact that their ancestors were recorded tenants whereas the basis of defendants’ claim was their registered sale deed from one Rajendra Prasad Singh who was a purchaser from Singho Poddar who in turn purchased from Narsingh Poddar. Both the learned courts below have found that the defendants have failed to prove the very title of Narsingh Poddar on the suit land by any documentary evidence. It has also been held that only by virtue of mortgage deed by Narsingh Poddar he cannot be said to be in possession of the suit land or having title upon the same. In the said circumstances the learned courts below found that no title has passed on the defendants by the said sale because the very source of - 2 - title is not proved. The learned courts below have also found that the entry in the record of rights is an evidence of the title and possession till the same is proved to be incorrect and in absence of any other valid material, the entry in the record of rights shall be strong presumption of the title and possession of the recorded tenant and in the instant case the plaintiffs’ ancestors were clearly recorded in the record of rights as owner and the defendants were not able to rebut the entries in the record of right by any valid material. The learned courts below also found the plaintiffs to be in the continuous possession of the suit land prior to which the suit land was in possession of their ancestors. The learned Court below also comparatively found and held that the defendants, if at all, came in possession of the suit land, they got the possession only in the month of July, 1989 after dispossessing the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendants. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances there appears to be no illegality in the judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does this Court finds any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. B.Tiwary/ ( S. N. Hussain, J )