IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.257 of 2004 BILAYATI SINGH & ANR Versus RAJIV KUMAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 4/ 03.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 4 of 1981 ( 18 of 1987 ) which was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents Ist set for declaration that the sale deeds executed by Bisho Singh in the name of Tribeni Singh, Radharaman Singh and Ramsharan singh were not binding on the plaintiffs and also for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge, IInd , Jamui by judgment and decree dated 30.05. 1988 which was challenged by the defendants/ appellants in Title Appeal No. 35 of 1988 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No.I, Jamui by judgment and decree dated 28.05.2004. The defendants/ appellants have challenged the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below in the instant second appeal. The learned courts below have found that admittedly the suit land was recorded in the name of grand father of the plaintiffs and theory of oral sale by him after survey operation was not proved. It was also held that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants specially the deposition of D.W. 1 was not acceptable in the light of the strong oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs on the point of title as well as possession. It was further held by the learned courts below that Kallar Singh had not re-purchased the lands sold to Dariao Singh and others and never came in possession thereof. It was held that 2 the right, title and interest of Dariao Singh and others were never extinguished and defendant Ist party never came in possession of the suit land and hence there was no question of any adverse possession of defendant Ist Party nor defendants 13 and 14 ever acquired any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. The learned lower appellate court while considering the points raised on behalf of the defendants/ appellants further found that the plaintiffs had been able to establish their title over the suit property, whereas the defendants could not prove either oral purchase or adverse possession and hence the plaintiffs’ title subsists. The learned lower Appellate court also found that the plaintiffs had not brought this suit for cancellation of the deed but he simply sought for the relief to avoid the deed as the plaintiffs had been able to prove his title and hence a transaction by any other persons would be illegal. It was also found by the learned lower appellate Court that no doubt the trial court had not framed any issue regarding subsisting title of the plaintiffs but in the opinion of the Court issues are framed where material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. But in the instant case the defendants were claiming adverse possession , hence they admitted the title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendants admitted the title of plaintiffs by implication and hence there was no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court. It was also held that acquittal in the criminal appellate court raised a suspicion in the mind of the plaintiffs about the cloud upon title in the suit property and, therefore, the suit was filed and hence there was no illegality in the 3 same. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is found that the learned courts below have very clearly gone into the various aspects of the mater and has come to specific findings which are legal and proper. This Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. B.Tiwary/ ( S. N. Hussain, J )