IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.191 of 2006 1. Harihaqr Sao son of lqate Shaukhi Saw 2. Ramakant Saw 3. Lakshmikant Saw 4. Keshri Nandan Saw All are minor sons of Harihar Saw, under the Guardianship of his father. All are residents of village Ambari P.O. Ambari via Nimi, P.S. Shekhopur Sarai, District Sheikhpura. ….. Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants. Versus 1. Shawan Kumar son of Chhatu Saw 2. Ganesh Saw son of Sharwan Saw 3. Saryug Saw son of Govind Saw 4. Prahlad Saw son of Saryug Saw All are resident of village Ambari P.O. Ambari, P.S. Shgekhopur Sarai, District- Sheikhpura. … Defendants- Respondents.- Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants :M/S Devendra Prasad Singh with Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents : M/S Kalika Nandan, Bijay Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Nandan, Advocates. ------------ 10/ 18-12-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 17 of 1993 which was filed by the appellants for a declaration that they had title in respect of the land described in Schedule-1 of the plaint and the door which was opened by the defendants in the western wall of their house, was wrongful and illegal and also for a direction to the defendants to close the door opened by them and further refrain from using it for their egress and ingress and for other - 2 - ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Sheikhpura by his judgment and decree dated 30.07.2002. The said judgment and decree of the learned trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs in Miscellaneous Title Appeal No. 21 of 2002 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court-1, Sheikhpura by his judgment and decree dated 06.10.2005. Aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below have been challenged in the instant second appeal. 5. Both the learned courts below have considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail and thereafter they came to the conclusion that the report of the Pleader Commissioner was absolutely unreliable because he neither informed the defendants nor took signature of their Advocate either on the field book or on any paper as required in law. In any view of the matter the deed of transfer relied upon by the defendants was challenged by the plaintiffs on the only ground that it was not registered and hence it cannot be taken into consideration but the said submission was found to be absolutely baseless as the said deed of transfer was for value of less than Rs. 100/- and hence it did not require any registration as per the provision of the Registration Act. Furthermore, the said document having not been challenged on any other ground the learned courts below were fully justified in relying upon it. 6. The learned courts below after considering the evidence of the parties came to a definite conclusion that the documents of the defendants were cogent and convincing with respect to their title and possession of the - 3 - suit land, whereas the plaintiffs were not found to have any title or possession over the suit land. Furthermore, the appellants did not seek any relief for cancellation of the sale deeds on which the respondents had based their claim of title. Hence, there is no illegality in the said findings of the learned courts below. 7. So far the other point is concerned, the learned courts below after considering the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that all the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of plaintiffs , have not given any cogent and convincing evidence as to the date when the door in question was said to have been opened on the land in question by the defendants and hence they completely failed to establish the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants opened the door illegally. Furthermore, the learned courts below also found that the defendants on the basis of their right, title and possession over the suit land by virtue of documents of transfer had full right to use the said land and the door and there was no question of any encroachment or any unauthorized opening of door by them. 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. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)