IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.389 of 2008 Parmanand Mahto Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 06. 22.12.2011 Heard Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.J.S.Arora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 1st Set. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of affirmance dismissing the suit. 2. The suit has been filed for the relief seeking declaration of title and further for declaration that on the basis of the order dated 22.09.1990 by the defendant 1st set granting Parcha in favour of the defendant 2nd Set, no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land have accrued to them and the said order is void, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. From the perusal of the judgments of the trial court it appears that the suit has proceeded ex parte against the defendants. However, as the plaintiff has failed to substantiate the claim of acquisition of valid title over the suit land by leading cogent evidence 2 in that regard the suit has dismissed. 4. In appeal also the appellate court, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and considering the evidence on record, has held that the plaintiff has failed to bring sufficient evidence on record to establish the right, title of his vendor Smt. Uma Devi and has also failed to adduce evidence on record to establish that the respondent 1st set did not have the right, title and possession over the suit land. Consequently, on the basis of the aforesaid findings the appeal has been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously submitted that both the courts below have acted erroneously in dismissing the suit without considering the averments in the plaint and the oral as well as documentary evidence which have been brought on record by the plaintiff. It has been urged that the plaintiff has clearly averred in the plaint as well as in his deposition that the suit land had been allotted to his vendor in partition which fact has also been mentioned in the sale deed which has been brought on record by the plaintiff as Exhibit 1. As such 3 it is the submission of the learned counsel that the dismissal of the suit as well as appeal on the finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case is clearly unwarranted. 6. After the perusal of the impugned judgments and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, it appears that the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming title over the suit land on the basis of sale deeds and further has also sought the relief assailing the order passed by the respondent 1st set State of Bihar granting Parcha to the defendant 2nd Set with regard to the suit land. In this view of the matter, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to adduce such evidence which would have established that the vendor of the plaintiff had valid title and possession over the suit land and the respondent State of Bihar had also accepted the vendor of the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff to have such title and possession over the suit land. It is well settled that even when the hearing of the suit proceeds ex parte, the plaintiff is still required to establish his case by cogent evidence before the Court. No evidence has been led to sustain the title of the 4 vendor of the plaintiff over the suit land and absence of title in the respondent 1st set over the same. In this view of the matter, there does not appear to be any illegality in the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below. As such no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)