IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.546 of 2009 Jitendra Prasad, Son of Sri Singhasan Prasad, R/o Village- Bhaisahi, P.O.-Padarkhap, Via-Bagaha, P.O. & P.S.- Bhairoganj, District-West Champaran.-----------Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1.Ram Chandra Baitha, Son of Shyam Sundar Baitha. 2.Lalpari Devi, Wife of Ram Chandra Baitha. Both are residents of Village- Bhaisahi, P.O. Podar Khap, Via- Bagha, P.O. & P.S.- Bhairoganj, District- West Champaran. --------Defendant-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- 5. 22.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. 1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2009 passed by District Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Appeal No. 49/2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2008 passed by Munsif, Bagha in Title Suit No.27/2000. 2. The plaintiff has filed this appeal against the judgment of affirmance dismissing his suit. The suit has been filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession over the suit land and further declaration has been sought that the sale deed dated 28.12.1990 in favour of the defendant Lalpari Devi is void and illegal. The admitted case of the parties is that the suit property belonged to Parma Hazam who had been recorded to be in 2 possession of the same in the survey khatian. The plaintiff’s case is that after the death of Parma Hazam, it came in possession of the plaintiff’s predecessor who was care taker of Parma Hazam. Later on it was allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff who got the rent fixed in his name and the documents of fixation of rent are Ext.6 and 7 in the suit and had sold the same to the plaintiff by registered sale deed (Ext.3.). On the other hand the defendants claim to have derived title and possession over the suit land on the basis of sale deed (Ext.A) from heirs of Chhedi Mishra asserting that Chhedi Mishra had orally purchased the suit property from Parma Hazam. 3. After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, the trial court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that after death of admitted owner Parma Hazam, the predecessor of the plaintiff acquired valid title and possession over the suit land. It has also been held that the defendants are not the licensee of the plaintiff and have better claim of title than the plaintiff. In appeal, the appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his title over the suit property but simultaneously the appellate court also disbelieved the claim of title of the defendant and dismissed the suit. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the 3 appellate court has left the matter in lurch in concluding that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have proved the title over the suit land and has thereby committed error in law. From the perusal of the judgments of both the courts below it appears that the plaintiff has sought the relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants and the further relief is for declaration of sale deed of the defendants as illegal document. The plaintiff has accepted the defendant’s possession over the suit land but has come out with the case that the defendants are the licensees of the plaintiff. In order to succeed in the suit it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish his title over the suit property for getting the relief against the defendant who are admittedly in possession. It is well established that a plaintiff cannot succeed on the basis of weakness of the case of the defendant. Both the courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no title over the suit property. As such there is no force in the submission on behalf of the appellant. 5. In view of the concurrent finding of fact, there is no scope for interference in this second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh (V.Nath, J.)