IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.243 of 2000 SACHIDA SINGH @ SACHIDANAND SINGH& ORS. Versus GONAUR RAM & ORS. For the appellants : M/s S.K.Verma, Harendra Narain Sinha, Rekha Pd. and Jitendra Kishore Verma,Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. ----------- 11/ 10.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 127 of 1983 (70/87), which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents- respondents for declaration of their title with respect to the suit land detailed in Schedule-II of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Hajipur vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.1987. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial court the defendants-appellants filed Title Appeal No. 16 of 1988, which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge-I Hajipur vide his judgment and decree dated 27.03.2000. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. The claim of the plaintiffs was that the suit property 2 originally belonged to Mulchand Mahto and Gopal Mahto, who sold it to the ancestor of the plaintiffs, namely, Dahu Mahra by a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1898 whereafter the said vendee came in possession thereof and his family throughout remained in possession till date, but recently the defendants tried to interfere in their peaceful possession of the suit land and hence the instant suit was filed. 6. On the other hand, the claim of the defendants was based on sale deed of 1933, which was said to have been executed by plaintiff no.1 Sukhu Ram and father of plaintiff no.2 Ramcharan Mahra in favour of the ancestor of the defendants. It was also claimed that on the basis of the said sale deed defendants came in possession and throughout remained in the suit land and accordingly revisional survey khatiyan was prepared in their name in the year 1970. 7. Both the learned courts below found that at the time of his deposition as PW.8 on 14.05.1987 the age of plaintiff no.1 was assessed to be 65 years and this was never challenged by the defendants and hence the learned courts below calculated that his date of birth must be about in the year 1922 and he would have been only 11 years old at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed of 1933. It was also found that Ext.D does not show that Ramcharan Mahra along with Sukhu Ram had executed the deed of sale acting as guardian of minor. The original of the said sale deed of 1933 was not produced, although it was clear from the 3 deposition of DW.23 that the original kebala of 1933 was in custody of the defendants, but they did not purposely file it in court knowing its consequence and out of fear of detection of fraud they had committed in the said document and only a certified copy of the said document was produced in court which was marked as exhibit with objection of the plaintiffs, as Sukhu Ram as PW.8 had specifically denied the execution of any such sale deed. Furthermore, the execution of the sale deed had not even been proved by the defendants-appellants and hence the learned courts below clearly found that the said document was not at all reliable and cannot confer any right, title and interest upon the defendants. 8. So far the question of possession is concerned, the specific claim of the plaintiffs was that they and their ancestor were in possession of the suit properties since their purchase in the year 1898 and they are still in possession thereof and this fact has also been proved by DW.10, who has stated that the field and house were in possession of the plaintiff Sukhu Ram. It was also found that the plaintiff-respondent has got houses in the disputed land since the time of their ancestor Dahu Mehra and thus keeping in view of the specific materials and pleadings it was held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and the defendants were not in possession thereof. 9. It was also held by both the learned courts below that since the plaintiffs have been found to be in possession since 4 their purchase in the year 1898 and they had claimed for declaration of their title only, hence there was no question of any bar under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. So far the points raised by learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the question of limitation is concerned, there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to challenge the deed of sale of 1933 and the revisonal survey entry of 1970 and hence they were not challenged in the suit. 10. The learned courts bellow rightly came to the finding of fact that the defendants wanted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs on the basis of revisional survey khatiyan, which came to be known to the plaintiff on 12.05.1983 and hence cause of action arose on that date and subsequently the suit was filed in the year 1983 itself. Thus in the said circumstances, learned courts below rightly found that there was no question of limitation in the filing of the suit and that plaintiffs had valid cause of action for the suit and the claim of the plaintiffs had been rightly decided in their favour. 11. 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)