IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.225 of 2007 Doma Prasad Pasi Versus Fulmati Devi & Ors ----------- 9 19-7-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal, who had instituted Title Suit No. 162 of 1988 for declaration that the defendants had not got any right of easement over the Schedule ‘Ka’ land mentioned in the plaint and have no right of worshipping by installing an idol over the same, and the further relief was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff and interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. The plaintiff has claimed the suit land on the basis of settlement from the State of Bihar, as he was a landless member of the Scheduled Caste. The plaintiff had asserted that after the settlement aforesaid, he came in possession and has been paying rent to the State of Bihar and getting rent receipts. His further case is that the defendants forcibly dispossessed from a part of the suit land and had installed idol of Hanumanjee over the same. His further case is that the defendants are powerful persons of the locality and are suppressing the plaintiff, who belongs to a weaker section of the society. 2 On the other hand, the defendants had claimed that the idol of Hanumanjee is there upon the land from long back and another portion of the land is being used by them as Rasta, and they had acquired right of easement and right of worshipping the idol. The defendants have asserted that the plaintiff never came in possession over the suit land and denied that the idol of Hanumanjee was installed during the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. After hearing the parties the Munsif, Bhabua, came to the finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has got delivery of possession of the land settled to him by the State of Bihar. The learned Munsif further found that the defendants hve got their house by the side of the disputed land and have acquired right of easement over the suit land for going to their house. The learned Munsif also held that the idol of Hanumanjee was there from long back, and the people of Bhabua have been worshipping the said idol. The appellate court after considering the submissions of the plaintiff-appellant, and further considering the evidence on record, came to affirm the findings recorded by the trial court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 appellant has submitted that the courts below have failed to properly consider Ext.5(the report of Karmchari during 144 proceeding), Ext.6(the report by the Circle Officer during 107 proceeding) and Ext.7(the report of the Pleader Commissioner in the suit), and the judgments of both the courts below are not sustainable due to misappreciation of those exhibits. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the judgments of both the courts, it appears that the aforesaid exhibits have been considered by the courts and after considering those exhibits along with other evidence the finding of fact has been recorded against the plaintiff. Further, both the courts below have recorded their finding after considering the material evidence on record. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, and it is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)