IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.351 of 2004 ---- Bhola Prasad, son of Suraj Mahto, resident of Village-Samanpur Tola Konatia, P.S.Ghorasahan, at present Kundwa Chainpur, P.S. Baruwa Khurd, Samanpur, District-East Champaran. -- Defendant-Appellant-Appellant Versus 1. Ramlaganb Mahto son of late Lal Bahadur Mahto 2. Jawahar Mahto, son of Ram Lagan Mahto 3. Mahesh Mahto son of Ram Lagan Mahto All resident of village-Samanpur Tola Kanatia, P.S.Ghorasahan, at present Kundwa Chainpur P.O. Baruwa Khurd Samanpura, District-East Champaran (Motihari). --Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents Ist Set. 4. Ram Narayan Prasad son of Sri Sah, resident of Village- Samanpur Tola Kantia, P.S.Ghorasahan at present Kunda Chainpur, P.O.Baruwa Khurd Samanpur, District-East Champaran (Motihari). -- Defendant- Respondent-Respondent 2nd Set. 5. Prem Chandra Prasad, son of Late Hari Sah, Resident of village-Parnaiha Tola Balapur, P.O.& P.S. Ghorasahan, District-East Champaran (Motihari). -- Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 3rd Set. ----------- For the appellant : M/s Sharda Nand Mishra, Dhanjay Kumar Gupta & Deepak Kumar, Advocates. For the respondent no.2: Mr. Narayan Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ---- 14. 16.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.114 of 1990 which was filed by plaintiff-respondent-respondent Ist Set for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession of the suit land and also for other ancillary reliefs. - 2 - The aforesaid title suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif Sikrahana vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.1997. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant-appellant filed Title Appeal No.11 of 1998 (09/2004) which was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, East Champaran, Motihari vide his judgment and decree dated 23.08.2004. Both the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that both the learned courts below have come to concurrent finding that Vishwanath Mahto, vendor of the plaintiffs, had acquired, right, title in respect of the suit land from Ram Briksha Sah through sale deed dated 05.12.1979 (Ext.-2). It has also been concurrently found that sale deed dated 27.04.1990 was executed in favour of the plaintiffs on payment of consideration money whereupon possession was also delivered to the plaintiffs, whereas the sale deed was registered on 11.05.1990, but they were dispossessed on 03.07.1990 by defendant Ist Party in collusion with defendant 2nd Party. It was also found by the learned courts below that the question of possession has been fully proved by the evidence of the plaintiffs which was supported even by the witnesses of the defendants, namely, D.Ws.4 and 8 who stated that the vendees of Ram Briksha Sah are in possession over - 3 - the purchased land. It has also been found by both the learned courts below that no documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of the defendants to show their possession on the basis of any genuine sale deed or title, whereas Ext.-1 series, have been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, which are rent receipts in the name of Bishwanath Mahto. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned courts below came to specific conclusion that Ram Briksh Sah came in possession after execution of sale deed by Bishun Mahto, whereafter Ram Briksh Sah sold the same to Vishwanath (Ext.-2) and put him in possession thereof and thereafter Bishwanath transferred the suit land (Schedule-I) to plaintiff Jawahar Mahto and others through two sale deeds and put them in possession and subsequently defendant no.1 dispossessed the plaintiffs from the part of the disputed land (Schedule II of the plaint). In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the judgments and decree of the learned courts below are based on concurrent findings of facts which have been arrived at legally after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties and no substantial question of law is 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)