IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.101 of 2006 Ram Bihar Singh @ Ram Bihar Bhagat son of late Suraj Singh, resident of Dhusa, Pragna Chaubar, P.S. Mairwa, District- Siwan. …. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1. Ram Pratap Chaudhary. 2. Jai Mangal Chaudhary, both sons of late Deep Chaudhary, all residents of village- Dhusa, Pragna Chauhar, P.S. Mairwa, District- Siwan. … Defendants- Respondents- Respondents. ----------- 9/ 17-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant . 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff-appellant- appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 80 of 1980 ( 43/ 86) which was filed by the appellant for declaration of his title, recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Munsif-5, Siwan vide judgment and decree dated 12.05.1987 against which the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.29 of 1987 but that was also dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Siwan by judgment and decree dated 12.01.2006. The aforesaid judgments and decree are under challenge in this second appeal. 4. The learned courts below have considered the entire matter in detail and have arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff had to prove his claim on the basis of valid materials and he could not take advantage of the weakness of the case of the defendants. It was also found that the plaintiff had claimed that he purchased the suit land from his vendor by registered sale deed dated 15.10.1971 and since then he was in possession but was subsequently dispossessed on 31.05.1980 by the defendants, but the plaintiff miserably failed to show the title and possession of his vendor who had executed the deed in his - 2 - favour in the year 1971. It was also found that no rent receipt or evidence of possession of either of plaintiff or his vendor had been produced, whereas on the other hand, the defendants have proved that after vesting of Zamindari, Rent Fixation Case no. 589 of 1960-61 was initiated and was allowed in favour of the defendants on 01.12.1960 ( Ext.E) and the defendants had been paying government rent since the time of vesting in the year 1954 for which the Government receipts, Ext. A series, were issued to them throughout. It was also found that the defendants have specifically claimed that their ancestors settled in the suit land and constructed their house and boundary and remained in continuous, open and peaceful possession of the same without any objection of the maliks or anyone else. It was also found that even after vesting of Zamindari neither the vendor of the plaintiff or the plaintiff himself ever raised any objection to the records prepared in the name of the defendants nor they challenged the order of 1960 passed in Rent fixation case, hence the defendants had clearly been able to prove their title by adverse possession. It was also held that after the rent fixation order of 1960 the suit was filed in the year 1980, i.e., after twenty years and hence there was also bar of limitation. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court does not find any illegality in the 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 of Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)