1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.104 of 2006 1. Brij Prasad alias Brij Nandan Prasad 2. Sundar Prasad Both sons of Chamaru Bhagat 3. Raj Kishore Yadav, son of late Girija Prasad @ Bhardul Prasad All residents of Mohalla Nawadah, P.S.,P.O. Nawadah,Town Arrah, District Bhojpur. …Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. -versus- 1. Chhathi Ram Yadav, son of Gena Raut @ Gona Raut @ Gonal Lal Yadav, resident of Muhalla, P.O.,P.S. Nawadahd,Town Arrah District Bhojpur. …Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1st set. 2. Sunita Devi, daughter of late Girija Prasad @ Bhardul Prasad and wife of Sri Om Prakash, resident of Muhalla, P.O.,P.S. Nawadahd,Town Arrah District Bhojpur. 3. Sunaina Devi, daughter of late Girija Prasad @ Bhardul Prasad and wife of Sri Deo Kumar, resident of Hathi Tola, Maner, P.O.,P.S. Maner, District Patna. … Defendants-Appellants-Respondents 2nd set. ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. ---- 09/ 13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 59 of 1981 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent no.1 for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent and for recovery of arrears of rent as well as for other ancillary reliefs. Subsequently the plaint was amended and statement of fact as well as relief was also added for declaration of title and the court fee required for the title suit was also paid by the plaintiff. 4. The said title suit was decreed by the learned 2 Munsif-III, Ara, vide his judgment and decree dated 28.05.2003 holding that the plaintiff had title over the suit premises and was entitled to recovery of possession from the defendants. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 39 of 2003, which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, vide his judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below did not find any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and hence there was no question of default. However, the learned courts below found that since the plaint was amended to the extent of facts and relief claiming declaration of title etc. and the court fee as required for a title suit was paid by the plaintiff, it was the duty of the courts to consider and decide that aspect of the matter also. Thereafter the learned courts below specifically found that the claim of the plaintiff was based on a registered deed of sale dated 15.02.1979, which was executed by Lakhia Devi and on its basis the said title suit was filed in the year 1981 and the said transfer of title to the plaintiff was fully proved by valid evidence, both oral and documentary. 6. From the pleadings and evidence it is apparent that earlier with respect to the same land another Title Suit No. 136 of 1979 was instituted, which was decreed against the 3 defendants, whereafter it was challenged in the High court by the defendants vide First Appeal No. 86 of 1997, which was dismissed for default and for restoring the same M.J.C. No. 1568 of 1998 was filed, which too was dismissed and, thereafter, no step was taken by the defendants. Accordingly, the order of the trial court in Title Suit No. 136 of 1979 attained finality. Apart from that, no valid or reliable evidence, either oral or documentary, could be produced by the defendants to show their title over the suit land. This aspect of the matter has been fully considered by the learned courts below. 8. 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. )