IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No. 23 OF 2005 ----------- 1. Biresh Prasad Sahu 2. Suresh Prasad Sahu Both sons of Sri Debi Prasad Sahu, residents of village Sahu Parbatta, P.S. Naugachia, at present P.S. Sahu Parbatta, District Bhagalpur. ……..Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellants. Versus The State of Bihar through the Collector, Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur. ……….Defendant-Respondent-Respondents …….. For the Appellants : Shri C. M. Chawrasoa. Advocate For the Respondents : None …….. 06/ 26.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 47 of 1989, which was filed by the appellants for declaring that they had right and title over the suit land and the revisional survey entries of 1977 made in favour of the sole defendant-respondent-respondent, namely, Anabad Bihar Sarkar-Ganga Nadi was wrong, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Munsif, Naugachia vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.1996. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No. 95 of 1996, which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Naugachia by judgment and decree dated 05.10.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the - 2 - instant second appeal has been filed. 5. From the respective claims of the parties as well as materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below have considered the entire matter in detail and have found that the plaintiffs were claiming on the basis of a registered deed dated 06.12.1913, by which Ram Rekha Sahu purchased some land from Ganpat Bhagat and others. It was also found that even according to the claim of the plaintiffs, Ram Rekha Sahu left behind only a daughter and the plaintiffs claimed to be grand children of the said daughter of Ram Rekha Sahu. It was nowhere mentioned by the plaintiffs as to when Ram Rekha Sahu died to ascertain whether his daughter was competent to inherit his property nor it has been mentioned as to when his daughter had died. 6. It has also been found that apart from the aforesaid deed of 1913 there is no material at all to show that the plaintiffs had any right, title or interest in the suit properties as there is no return in the name of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest at the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act nor any Jamabandi is said to have been opened in their names. The entire basis of the plaintiffs’ claim are some rent receipts as well as the depositions of their witnesses. P.W.1 is one of the plaintiffs, whereas, P.Ws. 4 and 5 are formal witnesses. So far P.Ws. 2 and 3 are concerned, they have tried to support the plaintiffs’ claim of possession but they were unable even to identify the lands in question - 3 - by their plot numbers or khata numbers and could not state as to how the plaintiffs acquired the said lands. Furthermore, even the boundary of the disputed land has not been stated in the plaint. Merely some rent receipts cannot legally prove the possession of the plaintiffs much less their title, when they miserably failed to show by any other material that they had remained in exclusive possession of the said lands as absolute owners thereof. 7. In this aforesaid background of the matter, the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove that the entries made in the revisional survey khatian in the name of Anabad Bihar-Sarkar Ganga Nadi regarding khata no.827, plot no. 1235 was wrong and hence it was rightly decided by the learned courts below that the said entry in the revisional survey khatian (Ext.4) was legal and correct. 8. 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )