IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.266 of 2002 HARIBANS RAM & ORS Versus GYANI DEVI & ANR ----------- 07/ 10.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 2 of 1983, which was filed by the plaintiff-appellants for declaration of their title over the suit land detailed in Schedule `C’ of the plaint and for setting aside the entries of the revisional survey khatian and also for setting aside the settlement by revenue authorities in favour of the defendants. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif-I, Bhagalpur, by judgment and decree dated 29.11.1986, which was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No. 60 of 1986, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge VII, Bhagalpur, by judgment and decree dated 20.06.2002. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants. Learned courts below have considered the matter in detail along with the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the specific conclusion that there was no iota of evidence to show any settlement by ex-intermediary in favour of ancestors of plaintiffs in the year 1929 or even in the year 1931 or to show that on that basis the plaintiffs remained in possession of the suit land. Learned courts below also found that settlement made by the State Government in favour of defendant no.2 in Settlement Case No. 35/01 of 1970-1971 was fully proved and was also confirmed by higher authorities, on - 2 - the basis of which the defendants became the settlees and owners of the suit premises. Furthermore although in paragraph no.18 of its judgment, the lower appellate court has found that the plaintiffs were in possession of 7 kathas of land although they had title only over 6 kathas of land, but that cannot go to show that remaining one katha of land is the suit land, specially when the learned trial court as well as the learned lower appellate court in paragraph no.19 of its judgment has specifically found that the plaintiffs have got no possession over the suit land. In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor this Court finds any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )