IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.188 of 2006 Md. Hasim son of late Md. Suleman, resident of village- Gausnagar, P.S. Runnisadipur, District Sitamarhi. …Plaintiff- Appellant-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Sitamarhi 2. Anchal Adhikari, Runnisadipur, Anchal, District Sitamarhi. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 1st set. 3. Md. Saghir son of late Atiullah 4. Md. Malik son of late Abdul Wadood 5. Abdul Quaiyum, son of late Salimullah, Secretary of the Mosque of village Gausnagar. 6. Md. Ibrahim, son of late Abdul Gaffar. 7. Md. Abdul Majid, son of Abdul Majeed 8. Md. Urair, son of Abdul Ajaz. 9. Md. Tiyab Hussain, son of late Md. Azimullah 10. Md. Muslim, son of Md. Rasul Jan All 3 to 10 are resident of village-Gausnagar, P.S. Runnisaidpur, District Sitamarhi. Intervenor Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 2nd set. ………… For the Appellants : M/s Akhowri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Anirudh Kumar Sinha and R.Vasundhara, Advocates. For the Respondents : None. ----------- 03/ 10.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2, This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the sole plaintiff-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 126 of 1993, which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for an order of injunction as well as other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Sitamarhi vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2001. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal No. 42/ 2001(3/2002) , which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge, Sitamarhi, 2 vide his judgment and decree dated 05.07.2006. Against the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. From the averments made by learned counsel for the appellant and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have come to a specific finding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his case of settlement from the ex-intermediaries. It has also been found that although the appellant is claiming on the basis of some receipts said to have been issued by the ex-intermediaries, but it was not supported by Return filed by the Zamindar in the name of the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest or on any Jamabandi or any other reliable material. Accordingly, both the learned courts below have found that there is no material to prove the claim of title raised by the plaintiff with respect to the suit land in Schedule-1 of the plaint. Furthermore, both the learned courts below have also found that the claim of the plaintiff with regard to his possession is based on merely Register-II (Ext. `P’) and some rent receipts issued in his favour, but they did not indicate with regard to possession and they cannot be held to be a conclusive proof of plaintiff’s alleged title. 6. 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )