IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.187 of 2009 1. Biltaniya Devi w/o Late Mukti Ram 2. Shobha Ram 3. Manoj Ram @ Manoj Kumar Ram 4. Sanjay Ram @ Sanjay Kumar Ram 5. Ranjit Ram @ Ranjit Kumar Ram All sons of Late Mukti Ram 6. Chandeshwar Ram 7. Bindeshwar Ram 8. Yugeshwar Ram All sons of Late Laxmi Ram 9. Shambhu Ram s/o late Jiwachh Ram 10. Smt. Laxmi Devi w/o Laxmi Ram 11. Smt Sunitiya Devi w/o Shambho Ram All resident of Village Chichari Bujurg PO Rajnagar P.S. Rajnagar Dist. Madhubani Defendants- Appellants- Appellants Versus 1. Bodh Narain Jha s/o Late Sri Kant Jha resident of Village Village Simari eastern tola PO and P.S. Rajnagar Dist. Madhubani Plaintiff – Respondent-Respondent no.1 2. Smt. Reeta Devi D/o Late Mukti Ram resident of Village Chichari Bujurg PO and P.S. Rajnagar Dist. Madhubani Defendant – Respondent-Respondent --------------- For the appellants: Mr Shashi Nath Jha , Advocate For respondent no.1: Mr Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate ------------------- 07/ 09.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.75 of 1998 which was filed by the sole plaintiff- respondent-respondent no.1 for declaration of his title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit property. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif I, Madhubani vide his judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007. - 2 - 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendants- appellants filed Title Appeal no.75 of 2007 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court no. IV, Madhubani, vide his judgment and decree dated 12.02.2009. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below but it is not in dispute that the property belonged to the family of Bhupati Nath Ghosh and the plaintiff-respondent claimed the suit property by way of purchase from one of the sons of Bhupati Nath Ghosh, namely, Chandi Charan Ghosh by three registered sale deeds dated 25.05.1985 (exhibits 14 series) whereas the defendants-appellants claimed the suit property on the basis of three agreements for sale dated 24.04.1998 ( exhibit A series) executed by another son of Bhupati Nath Ghosh namely, Bhawani Charan Ghosh in favour of the said defendants. 6. Both the learned courts below very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and thereafter came to the specific conclusion that on the basis of the registered sale deeds dated 25.05.1985 the plaintiff came in possession of the suit property and was subsequently dispossessed by the said defendants on 30.07.1998. It was also found by both the learned courts below that the defendants were claiming through agreement for sale dated 24.04.1998 but they were not put in possession on the said date rather they came in possession by dispossessing the plaintiff much subsequently on 30.07.1998 due to which the plaintiff was forced to file the - 3 - suit on 24.11.1998 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act as well as a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi & another vs Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi & others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 676 but the said provision of law and the case law will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of concurrent findings of facts of the learned courts below that on the date of the alleged Mahadnama dated 24.04.1998 the defendants were not put in possession by their proposed vendor rather they much subsequently came in possession on 30.07.1998 by dispossessing the plaintiff. Hence in the said circumstances, the plaintiff was fully entitled to file the suit for relief claimed by him. 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)