IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.75 of 2009 ----------- Girija Shanmkar Singh, son of late Kuldip Singh, Resident of village Kazipur Belarhi Pargana Anchha, P.S. Daud Nagar, District Aurangabad. Plaintiff-Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Uma Shankar Singh, son of Ram Rekha Singh 2. Ram Kuber Singh 3. Kapildeo Singh Both 2 and 3 are sons of late Ram Das Singh, All residents of village Kazipur Belarhi Pargana Ahchha, P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurangabad. Defendants-Respondents- Respondents ------- For the Appellant : M/s V. Nath, Md Waliur Rahman and Satish Kumr, Advocates. For the Respondents : None. -------- 07/ 17.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 64 of 1969, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit lands as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by Munsif, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 31.03.1978. 4. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal No. 44 of 1978 (68/2007), which was also dismissed on contest by Additional 2 District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 17.11.2008. Against the above stated judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, but from the facts and circumstances it is quite apparent that both the courts below have clearly found that plaintiff-appellant was not in possession of the suit land at least since the year 1940 while defendants-respondents and their vendors were in possession of the suit land at least since the year 1940 and hence it was held that the defendants had perfected their title upon the suit land by way of adverse possession. 6. The said finding is based on evidence and pleadings of the parties, in which defendants have specifically claimed that the suit was barred by law of adverse possession. Furthermore the earlier suits bearing Title Suit No. 40 of 1946 and Title Suit No. 45 of 1946 (Exts. 12 to 12/E) were decided in favour of Mostt. Lagani Kuer and the findings of the said two suits were not set aside by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and hence the plaintiff claimed that the said matter could not be decided in the said suit as it was barred by res judicata but the court of appeal below rightly came to the conclusion that lands involved in the two earlier suits were not the same, rather the said principle would be applicable to the instant suit. It was also found that after dismissal of the second appeal of 3 the other person even up to this Court for the land purchased through the same single sale deed the present suit must not have been filed by the plaintiff, which had been decided taking all those documents in consideration upon which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed even up to the stage of this Court . 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved the instant second, 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. )