IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.27 of 2006 1. Ramrati Devi, wife of Ram Ekbal Rai 2. Ram Ekbal Rai, son of Late Panchi Rai Both residents of village Sarari, P.O. Karanja, P.S. Naubatpur, District-Patna. At present resident at Abdullah Nagar, Targena, P.S. Masaurhi, District-Patna.. …..Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Patna, Patna Collectorate Office, P.S. Collectorate, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. 2. The B.D.O., Masaurhi, P.O. & P.S. Masaurhi, District-Patna. ……Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellants : Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ranjay Kr.Singh, Advocate. ----------- 08/ 03.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs-appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 186 of 1992, which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession of the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-IX, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.1999. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 73 of 1999, which was also dismissed on contest but without cost by the learned Additional District judge-IV, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2005. The instant second appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 2 From the arguments and the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs were claiming the land on the basis of settlement by the ex-intermediaries and for proving their claim, some Zamindari receipts were produced but the learned courts below after considering them found that Ext.1 and Ext.3 to 3/B were manufactured papers and were against the pleadings of the plaintiffs. The learned courts below were quite aware of the settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked into beyond the pleadings of the parties. The learned courts below also found that the plaintiffs can not succeed by taking advance of the alleged weakness in the case of the defendants, as the settled principle of law is that the claim of the plaintiff has to stand on its own leg. The learned courts below after due consideration found that the suit land was not even in possession of plaintiffs as it was found to have been acquired as far back as in 1957-58 in a land acquisition proceeding, whereafter compensation had already been paid and the award had become final and it became land of government over which Anchal Office and B.D.O. Office is situated. 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 this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)