IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.288 of 2004 Punam Chand, son of Manik Chand, resident of Bharaopar, Town, Biharsharif, P.O. Biharsharif, District Nalanda…. Appellant.. Versus 1. Geeta Bai Bhatta, wife of late Tarakant Bhatta 2. Dhirendra T. Bhatta 3. Sudhir T. Bhatta 4. Randhir T. Bhatta 5. Santosh T. Bhatta 6. Satish T. Bhatta Sons of late Tara Kant Bhatta 7.(i) Kaplana Bhatta (ii) Abhijit Bhatta (iii) Darshan Bhatta Sons of Yogeshwar Bhatta (iv)Bandana Bhatta, d/o Yogeshwar Bhatta 8. Krishna bai Bhatta, wife of Radhakant Bhatta. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondents 9. Ratneshwar B. Bhatta 10. Mukteshwar R. Bhjatta Sons of late Radhakant Bhatta 11.Rasmi Bhatta, wife of late Rajeshwar R. Bhatta 12.Srimati Binita Raykar, d/o Radhakant Bhatta All resident of Mohalla-Mathuria Bagnikhand, Town, Biharsharif P.S. Laheri, District Nalanda. 13. Jagarnath Singh Yadav, son of late Chulhai Singh Yadav 14. Kishuni Singh Yadav, son of late Yamuna Singh 15. Sri Lal Das Singh Yadav, son of late Aahori Singh. All resident of village Gokhla, Mathuria, District Vaishali At present Mohalla Bazar Samiti, Kella Patti, P.S. Deepnagar, District Nalanda. 16. Manoj Kumar, son of late Manik Chand 17. Usha Devi, wife of Raj Kumar, d/o late Manik Chand 18. Madhumati Devi, w/o Awadhesh Kumar, d/o late Manik Chand 19. Manju Kumari D/o Late Manik Chand. All resident of Mohalla Bharaopar, P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda. Defendants-Respondents-Appellants. ---------- For the Appellant : M/s Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate and Anil Chandra, Advocate. For the Respondents:M/s S.S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate and 1st Set. Khatim Reza, Advocate. ----------- 21/ 17.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. - 2 - 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendant no.4- appellant-appellant against the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 187 of 1979, which was filed by the sole original plaintiff Tarakant Bhatta (predecessor of respondent first set ) against defendants no.1 to 3 only for their eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent by the said defendants and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiff for the said suit premises and also for arrears of rent and other ancillary reliefs. Subsequently the suit was converted into a regular title suit after the impleadment of defendants no. 4 to 8 and others at the instance of defendants no. 1 to 3, who claimed that they were tenants of defendant no.4 ( appellant). 4. The said suit was decreed in part on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Biharsharif, vide his judgment and decree dated 20.07.2001 and only the claim of the plaintiff with respect to arrears of rent was rejected, whereas, other reliefs were granted. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by defendant no.4 in Title Appeal No. 35 of 2001, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Nalanda, by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2004. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Both the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to a definite conclusion - 3 - that the right, title and earlier possession of the plaintiff was proved by valid documents; such as registered deeds of transfer, Register-II as well as rent receipts whereas defendant no.4 failed to prove his title and possession by any valid evidence as even the Hukumnama (Ext. H) relied upon by him was found to be forged and never acted upon and nothing was found to support the same. It was also found that original defendants no.1 to 3 claimed that they were tenants of defendant no.4 (appellant) but defendant no.1 in his deposition as D.W.5 stated on 10.06.1991 that he had left the suit land 2 ½ - 3 years back and was not fighting the case and accordingly defendant no.4 can be in possession only since 1988-89. Hence, the learned courts below came to the conclusion that the defendants were trespassers having no right, title or interest in the suit property and hence they were liable to be removed. However, the learned courts below found that as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the plaintiff was not entitled to any arrear of rent. 6. 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 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )