IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.99 of 2009 1. Nand Kishore Pd. Verma 2. Sharda Kishore Verma 3. Shambhu Kishore Verma @ Shamhu Kishore Prasad All sons of Late Ambika Prasad 4. Prabha Verma W/o Sharda Kishore Verma All of village, P.O. & P.S. Piprakothi, District East Champaran. ………..Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Maya Devi wife of Brij Bihari Prasad of village, P.O. & P.S. Pipra, Kothi, District East Champaran 2. Indu Devi wife of Nageshwar Prasad D/o Brij Bihari Prasad deceased of village & P.O. Samra Station, P.S. Turkaulia, District East Champaran. 3. Suresh Kumar Shrivastava 4. Ramesh Kumar Shrivastava 5. Umesh Kumar Shrivastava All sons of Brij Bihari Prasad ………..Plaintiffs-Respondents 1st party-Respondents 1st set. 6. Most. Indu Devi wife of Late Mahesh Prasad D/o Late Singasan Prasad 7. Krishna Murari Prasad son of Mahesh Pd.(deceased) 8. Sandeo Kumar Shrivastava 9. Raju Kumar Shrivastava 10. Ranjan Kumar Shrivastava 11. Munna Kumar Shrivastava All sons of Mahesh Prasad (deceased). All of village, P.O. & P.S. Pipra, Kothi, District East Champaran. …….Defendants 2nd party-Respondents 2nd set-Respondents 2nd set. For the appellants : M/s Y.P. Sinha and N.K. Sinha No.3, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 06/ 22.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.120 of 1991 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents 1st set-respondents 1st set for declaration of their right, title and confirmation of their possession 2 over the suit land along with other ancillary relief of injunction etc. The said suit was decreed on contest by the Munsif, Sadar, Motihari vide his judgment and decree dated 12.04.2004. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed Title Appeal No.38 of 2004 (07/2005) which was dismissed on contest by the Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No.I, East Champaran vide his judgment and decree dated 24.11.2008. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the defendants- appellants vehemently challenges the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below, but it transpires that there were two main issues namely, as to whether the plaintiffs had title and possession over the suit land on the basis of the alleged settlement of 1951-52 from the ex- intermediaries and whether the defendants had perfected their title over the suit land by adverse possession. 6. While deciding the aforesaid issues, both the learned courts below very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and came to the specific conclusion that the plaintiffs were able to substantiate and establish their claim of title, continued and uninterrupted possession over the suit land by valid evidences, whereas the defendants could not produce any documentary evidence with respect to their title and possession. They had only pleaded their continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit land appertaining to Plot No.5 openly and adversely to the Betia Estate and 3 to the State of Bihar. The courts below have found that as per the settled principles of law a person claiming adverse possession over a property has to prove continuous and uninterrupted possession over the same for a period of 12 years or more with a hostile assertion of his own title and the same be shown by cogent, reliable and impeachable evidence, but the defendants could not produce any documentary evidence in that regard and the two witnesses produced by them could not satisfactorily disprove the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to title and possession supported by a series of evidences, both oral and documentary. Hence, it was found by the learned courts below that the defendants were not in possession of the suit premises and the plaintiffs had valid cause of action for the suit. 7. 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.)