IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.226 of 2009 Md. Abu Nasar, Son of Late Zafir Ahmad Ansari ,R/o Mohalla- Maharajganj, P.O.& P.S.-Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus Md. Quasim Hussain Ansari, Son of Late Abdul Aziz, R/o Mohalla- Sarai Sattar Khan ,P.O.-& P.S.-Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga.- ------------------Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. ----------- 10. 08 .09.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal is aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the courts below dismissing his suit and appeal thereafter. The plaintiff has filed Eviction Suit No. 04/2003 praying for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence, the learned Munsif I, Darbhanga came to the finding that the suit premises is the joint property of the plaintiff and the wife of the defendant and the plaintiff is having title over only half of the suit premises. The learned Munsif further recorded the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to the eviction decree as prayed for. The plaintiff preferred Eviction 2 Appeal No. 10 of 2008 against the dismissal of his eviction suit as aforesaid. However the appellate court below concurred with the findings recorded in the suit and further held that the defendant had vacated the suit premises in favour of his wife, who was also a co-owner/landlord, during the period 1996-98 prior to the filing of this suit for eviction. The learned appellate court below has also come to the conclusion that the controversy between the parties was beyond the scope of the intervention in a simple suit for eviction and all such controversies could be determined only in a full-fledged title suit/partition suit. On the basis of these findings the appeal has been dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are illegal and not based upon evidence. It has been submitted that the appellate court below while passing the judgment has not considered the oral evidence of the plaintiff before recording the findings. It has been submitted that one co- owner can very well maintain the suit for eviction. After hearing the submissions on behalf of the appellant and perusing the judgments under appeal, it is clear that there is no dispute that wife of the defendant (tenant) is co- owner of the suit premises and there has been no partition as yet 3 between the plaintiff and the wife of the defendant. The learned appellate court below has also disbelieved the case of private arrangement made between the mother of the plaintiff and Hafiz Mohammd Salim (father of the wife of the defendant) because of absence of evidence in its support and has also taken notice of the mentioning of the name of the wife of defendant in the southern boundary of the lands gifted by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of her sons through gift deed (Ext.C) which fact supports the case of the defendant. From the pleadings and evidence on record , it is apparent that this is not a simple suit for eviction rather complicated questions of title is involved requiring full-fledged trial and thereafter partition of the land between the two claimants of the original owner Late Hafiz Mohammd Salim. The one limb of the dispute between the rival claimants i.e. the mother of the plaintiff and wife of the defendant with regard to a portion of the property left by late Hafiz Mohammd Salim had also reached to this court in L.P.A.No. 625 of 1996. The learned appellate court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff even after being fully aware of the different issues and complications arising between the claimants of Late Hafiz Mohammd Salim had unnecessarily been fighting this litigation 4 being suit for eviction and has consequently saddled him with costs. There is no substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh (V.Nath, J.)