IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.279 of 2005 VISHWA NATH RAI & ANR. Versus RAJU SAO & ORS. ----------- 05/ 08.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. No one appears for the respondents. This second appeal, filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants, arises out of Title Suit No. 252 of 1993 which was filed by the appellants for declaration that they had acquired occupancy right in the suit land fully described in Schedule-I of the plaint and they were coming in peaceful possession thereof and also that the defendant fist set had acquired no right or possession over the said land and the sale deed executed by defendant fist set in favour of defendant second set in the year 1992 was void, illegal and did not convey any title or right over the suit land to defendant second set. The said title suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge-7 , Patna vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.1996, against which the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.95 of 1996 which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patna, vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2005. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the plaintiffs-appellants have filed the instant second appeal. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them as well as the provisions applicable thereto, both the learned courts below have arrived at the findings that the plaintiffs- appellants did not ever acquire any status either of Shikmi Dakhalkar 2 having occupancy right or of an under Raiyat after the statutory period of two years as per the entry in the record of right. The learned courts below also found defendants to be in possession of the suit land on the basis of their purchas. The learned courts below also arrived at the finding that recorded tenant was Asgar Ali, who had every right to transfer the suit land and hence he legally transferred it to Narayan Sao by registered sale deed of 1910(Ext.C/3). The learned courts below also found that by registered sale deed dated 31.01.1992(Ext.C/1) the defendant second set purchased the suit land from the heirs of said Narayan Sao. The learned courts below also found that in fact the plaintiffs challenged the sale deed executed by Asgar Ali in the year 1910 and hence, the suit was barred by law of limitation and furthermore since the defendants had been in possession since much before the plaintiffs’ claim was also barred by adverse possession .The learned court of appeal below specifically found that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs was insufficient for challenging the registered sale deed of 1910 as well as the sale deed of 1992 (Exts.C/3 and C/1) and hence the suit of the plaintiffs was affected by insufficiency in the court fees. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and specific finding of facts of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. harish/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)