IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.154 of 2007 ---- Smt.Bedami Devi, wife of Jagdish Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla-Gopalganj Road-Manpur, Police Station + Post Office-Buniyadganj, District-Gaya. -- Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1. Dayamanti Devi, wife of Late Durga Singh 2. Ram Naresh Singh 3. Ashok Singh 4. Anand Singh. Sl.no.2 to 4, sons of Late Durga Singh. All 1 to 4 are resident of Mohalla-Gopalganj Road, Manpur, Post Office + Police Station-Buniyadganj, District-Gaya. -- Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ----- For the appellant : M/s Om Prakash Upadhyay & Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ---- 05. 31.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-appellant challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.190 of 1992 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant-appellant for declaration of her title over the suit property detailed in Schedule A of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit after contest was dismissed by the learned Munsif-II, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 20.03.2004. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal No.20 of 2004 (22/2004) which was also dismissed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 03.05.2007. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts 2 below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently challenged the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below on the grounds that the learned court of appeal below has not considered some of her material witnesses and that the plaintiff being in possession of the suit land had acquired title over the same by way of adverse possession as also by way of purchase by registered deed from the son of settlee of the ex-intermediary. 5. From the arguments raised in this case as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned trial court has considered all the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, both oral and documentary, while deciding the suit. However, the claim of learned counsel for the appellant is that two material witnesses of the plaintiff were not considered by the learned court of appeal below. 6. It is quite apparent that while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, the learned court of appeal below has considered that the nature of the claim of the plaintiff required her to produce document of title, but apart from the registered sale deed executed by her vendors, namely Md. Abbas and Md. Yasin, she was unable to produce any material at all to show that her vendors had any right and title over the suit property or had any concern with the land in question. 7. It was also found by the learned courts below that 3 the plaintiff-appellant has not produced either any Hukumnama or any zamindari receipts granted by the ex-intermediary or copy of the return filed by the landlord at the time of vesting of the zamindari into the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff or their father showing them to be raiyats. It is also apparent that the plaintiff could not produce any jamabandi or Register-II either in the name of her vendors or her own name. Hence, there is nothing at all to show that the father of the plaintiff’s vendors was a raiyat of the ex-intermediary at the time of vesting of Zamindari. It was also found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant did not show the possession of the father of plaintiff’s vendor over the suit premises as even the vendors of the plaintiff were not examined to support the claim of possession of their father raised by the plaintiff in the suit land. 8. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the land in suit was in possession of Akbar Khalifa or that he had ever any right or title over it and also that after his death, his sons ever inherited or came in possession over the suit land. Hence, the learned courts below were quite justified in arriving at the finding that the plaintiff’s vendor Md. Abbas and Md.Yasin were not entitled to transfer the suit land to the plaintiff and hence the sale deeds produced by the plaintiff could not legally confer any right or title upon her. 9. So far the question of possession is concerned, both 4 the learned courts below after considering the pleadings of the parties arrived at the concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff or her vendors were not in possession of the suit land. 10. Accordingly, 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 thus dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)