IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.64 of 2009 ---- 1. Abdul Rehman 2. Subhan Mean 3. Usman Mean Sons of Sahadat Mian 4. Salim Ahmad 5. Sabir Ahmad Sons of Bibi Ketaban (since deceased) All residents of Village-Pawaria Tola; P.S. + Town-Bagha, District- West Champaran. Versus 1. Aisha Khatoon D/O Late Nayamat Miyan and W/o Gulli Mian, resident of Mohalla- Raigan 2. Bibi Jainul Nesha W/o Late Hanif Mian, Resident of Tola+P.O.& P.S. Begaha, Tappi – Batesera Pargana Majhauwa, District-West Champaran. 3. Ebedul Hussain 4. Allahuddin Sons of Hanif Mean R/O Village-Pawaria Tola, P.S. Bagaha, District-West Champaran. 5. Bibi Sabrun Nesa D/o Hanif Mian, resident of Pawariya Tola, P.S. + Town-Bagha, District- West Champaran. 6. Rajjak Mian S/o Salamat Mian 7. Sattar Mian S/o Salawat Mian 8. Quamrul Nesha S/o Salawat Mian 9. Neyamun Nesha D/o Salamat Mian Resident of Village- Pawariya Tola, P.O.+ P.S. Bagha, District- West Champaran. 10. Alimun Nesha D/o Hanif Mian and W/o Sansul Haque Master Resident of Village Basan Tola, P.O.+ P.S. Bettiah, District- West Champaran. 11. Safiullah S/o Duli Mian, resident of Village Ratan Mala, P.S. Bagha, District- West Champaran. 12. Hassan Mian S/o Duli Mian, resident of Village Ratan Mala, P.S. Bagha, District- West Champaran. 13. Alam Mian S/o Saddin Mian 14. Jahagir S/o Saddique Mian 15. Hasina Khatoon D/o Sadique Mian 16. Naseema Khatoon D/o Sadique Mian 17. Pappu Mian S/o Amaddulah 18. Nagina Khatoon D/o Amadullah 19. Baby Khatoon D/o Ahmedullah 20. Rajiya Khatoon 21. Hema Khatoon 22. Heena Khatoon 23. Saba Khatoon D/O Ahmedullah - 2 - 24. Md. Addullah S/o Neyamat Ali, All resident of Pawaria Tola, P.S + Town- Bagha, District- West Champaran. 25. Rehana D/o D/o Hanif Mian W/o Anwar Mian. R/o Kali Bagh, Bettiah, District-West Champaran. -Defendants-Respodnents-Respondents. ----- For the appellants : M/s. V.Nath, Satish Kumar and Sushil Kumar Ojha, Advocates. For respondent no.24 : Mr. S.P.Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ----- 11. 07.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.24. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging judgment and decree dated 27.09.2008 by which the learned Additional District Judge-Cum- Fast Track Court III, West Champaran dismissed Title Appeal No.43 of 1998 and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1998 by which the learned Munsif Bagaha dismissed Title Suit No.124 of 1992. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 12.04.1986 and 06.05.1986 passed in Title Suit No.27 of 1975 was null, void and collusive and not binding upon the plaintiffs and was non- executable. The said suit was contested by the defendants and as per the pleadings of the respective parties, following issues were framed. (i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs’ suit was barred by the law of limitation? (iii) Whether the decree in Title Suit No.27 of 1975 which was affirmed up till the High Court, can be set aside by the said court? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to any other - 3 - relief? 4. Thereafter evidences were led and arguments were made and the learned trial court by its judgment and decree dated 15.04.1998 dismissed the suit after arriving at the following findings:- (a) Since the judgment and decree of Title Suit No.27 of 1975 was affirmed up till the High Court, the trial court cannot set aside the said decree. (b) The suit was barred by law of limitation. (c) The plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs claimed. 5. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.43 of 1998 which was also contested by the defendants-respondents, whereafter the following issues were framed by the learned court of appeal below:- (i) Whether the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.27 of 1975 was null, void and non- executable and the plaintiffs were not bound by it? (ii) Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation? 6. After considering the arguments of the parties and perusing the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned court of appeal below dismissed the title appeal by judgment and decree dated 27.09.2008 after arriving at the following findings:- (a) The judgment and decree of Title Suit No.27 of 1975 cannot legally be held to be illegal and void. (b) The suit was barred by the law of limitation. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned court below, the instant second appeal has been filed by the - 4 - plaintiffs raising the same issues. However, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.27 of 1975 was dated 12.04.1986, whereas Title Suit No.124 of 1992 was filed more than six years thereafter. However, since there is no specific provision for limitation in such matters, the provision of Section 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable according to which three years limitation is provided from the date on which the right to issue accrued. 8. It is further apparent that in Execution Case No.05 of 1986, which was filed for execution of the judgment and decree dated 12.04.1986 passed in Title Suit No.27 of 1975, Bibi Hafijan (predecessor of the appellants of the instant second appeal) filed an application on 06.11.1987 for stay of the execution case during the pendency of Title Suit No.22 of 1986 which the appellant had filed for partition of her alleged share in the suit property. The said application was rejected by the executing court on 10.11.1987. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the predecessor of the plaintiffs-appellants of the instant case was fully aware of the judgment and decree dated 12.04.1986 passed in Title Suit No.27 of 1975 and the implication thereof with respect to the land in dispute. Hence, the right to sue had accrued to her immediately on the knowledge about the said decree in November, 1987. 9. It may be also noted that Title Suit No.22 of 1986 filed by the predecessor of the appellants for the suit lands was - 5 - although decreed by the trial court, but finally the lower appellate court dismissed the suit and the claim of the appellants which was affirmed by this court vide judgment dated 11.12.2007 passed in Second Appeal No.22 of 2004. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the concurrent findings of the learned courts below that the suit out of which this second appeal had arisen was barred by the law of limitation. 11. Furthermore, this court also does not find any illegality with respect to the other finding of the learned courts below. 12. Accordingly, 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)