IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.199 of 2006 ---- 1. Smt.Veena Devi, wife of Sri Rajdeo Sah, Resident of Mohalla-Chailitar, P.O. and P.S. Gulzarbagh, District- Patna. 2. Smt. Meena Devi, Wife of Sri Krishna Murari Sah, Resident of Mohalla-Chhoti Khagaul, Mahavir Asthan, P.S. Khagaul, District-Patna, At present residing at near Shiv Mandir, P.O. & P.S.- Jakkanpur, District-Patna. 3. Smt. Renu Devi, Wife of Sushil Kumar, Resident of Mohalla Kukinara, District 24 Pargana (West Bengal) At present residing at Shiv Mandir, P.O and P.S. Jakkanpur, District- Patna. 4. Smt. Rita Devi, Wife of Uma Shankar Sah, Resident of Mohalla Bihta, Near Station Road, P.S.-Bihta, District- Patna. 5. Smt. Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi, Wife of Sandeep Kumar, and daughter of Late Gauri Shankar Sah, Resident of Mohalla-Shiv Mandir, P.O. and P.S.-Jakkanpur, District-Patna. 6. Jagat Narain Sah @ Jagat Narain Gupta, Son of Late Gauri Shankar Sah, Resident of Mohalla-Gauria Math, P.S.-Jakkanpur, District-Patna. 7. Mostt. Krishna Devi, Wife of Late Nand Kishore Sah, Resident of village-Rupaspur, P.S.Danapur, District-Patna. Sl. Nos. 1 to 5 are heirs of original Defendant no.1, Sl. No.6 was original Defendant no.2 and Sl.No.7 was original Defendant No.3. -- Principal Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Rajendra Prasad son of Late Kishore Lal 2. Rajeshwar Bali, son of Late Bhagwan Das Both residents of village Rupaspur, P.S.Danapur,District-Patna. --Plaintiffs—Respondents—Respondents 1st Set. 3. Damodar Prasad Son of Late Kishori Lal, Resident of village Rupaspur, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna. --Defendant No.4-Respondent No.3-Respondents 2nd Set. ----------- For the appellants : M/s Pushkar Narain Shahi, Ritesh Kumar No.1 & Nishant Choudhary, Advocates. For the respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr.Kaushal Kumar, Advocate. ---- 10. 18.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. - 2 - This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.55 of 1990 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents 1st Set for declaration of their title and for damages against defendants for demolishing the structure of the plaintiffs on the suit land and injunction and for other interim reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by learned Subordinate Judge III, Danapur, vide his judgment and decree dated 05.04.1994. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendants-appellants-appellants in Title Appeal No.80 of 1994 which was dismissed on contest with cost by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, IV, Patna, vide his judgment and decree dated 24.06.2006. The aforesaid judgments and decree of both the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including judgments and decree of learned courts below, it is quite apparent that after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, both the learned courts below have come to definite finding that the plaintiffs were in possession on the basis of a compromise decree of 1959 passed by the Civil Court between some of the admitted co-sharers and on that basis they ousted the other co- sharers and remained in possession for more than 30 years without objection from any quarter. Furthermore, the defendants have not - 3 - stated anything with regard to partition in the family with respect to the disputed land, whereas another co-sharer of the family, namely P.W.4, has supported the title and possession of the plaintiffs upon the suit property stating that the plaintiffs had ousted other co- sharers on the basis of compromise decree and came in possession of the suit property which sufficiently proved the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs. The learned courts below also found that the order in rent fixation case does not confer any right, title or interest and furthermore the evidence of the parties proved the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Learned courts below also found that it was proved by D.Ws. themselves that the defendants had constructed the road upon the suit land by demolishing the structure upon the suit land. This is also supported by the report of the Pleader Commissioner. It is also proved that the said structures over the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and the defendants had no right to demolish the same and hence the defendants are liable to pay for the damages caused by them to the plaintiffs-respondents. 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)