IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.47 of 2006 1. Sri Doman Paswan 2. Sri Mohan Paswan 3. Sri Sohan Paswan, all sons of Late Kannu Paswan, all are residents of Mohalla Salimpur Bolia, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. Kadamkuan, District Patna. ………Defendants 1st party-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1. Sri Rajendra Prasad son of Sri Deo Narayan Prasad, resident of Mohalla Salimpur Bolia, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, P.O. Kadamkuan, District Patna. ….Plaintiff-Respondent 1st set-Respondent 1st set 2. Sri Ram Bahadur Ram son of Late Mohan Ram, resident of Mohalla Dariapur, Birla Mandir Road, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, District Patna. 3. Sri Babu Lal Ram son of Late Moti Ram, resident at S.T. No.11, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. & P.O. Kadamkuan, District Patna. ….Defendants 2nd party-Respondents 2nd set-Respondents 2nd set 4. Kameshwar Paswan @ Bhagwan Ram son of Sri Bhagwan and husband of Late Smt. Tetari Devi 5. Raju Paswan, son of Sri Kameshwar Paswan 6. Ajay Paswan minor son of Sri Kameshwar Paswan under the guardianship of his father Kameshwar Paswan, all residents of Mohalla Mauza Khajuria, P.S. Arrah Mufassil, P.O. Arrah, District Bhojpur 7. Rubi Devi wife of Basisth Paswan & daughter of Kameshwar Paswan, resident of village Bela, P.S. Arrah Town, P.O.Sariya, District Bhojpur. ……Heirs of deceased defendant 3rd party-appellant-Respondents 3rd party For the appellants : M/s S.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate and Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. ----------- 12/ 15.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal has been filed by defendants-appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned 2 courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.66 of 1990, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent 1st set for declaration of title, recovery of possession, eviction of defendants, recovery of arrears of rent and for other ancillary reliefs. The said title suit was decreed on contest with cost by learned Munsif-III, Patna vide his judgment and decree dated 17.05.1995. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No.53 of 1995, which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Patna vide his judgment and decree dated 06.01.2006. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below as well as a copy of plaint produced before this court by learned counsel for the appellants, it is quite apparent that the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen, was mainly a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff and also for declaration of non- title of the defendants as well as for recovery of possession, but as an ancillary relief, a claim for eviction of the defendants has been raised alleging the defendants to be the tenants. It is also apparent from the aforesaid materials on record that even ad-valorem court fee for declaration of title and recovery of possession was paid by the plaintiff and hence the learned courts below were fully justified in treating the suit as a suit for declaration of title, specially because 3 the relief of title claimed by the plaintiff was not an ancillary relief, rather it was the main relief whereas the relief of eviction was an ancillary relief. In the said circumstances, the judicial pronouncements with regard to the suit mainly filed for eviction of a tenant under the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act cannot legally be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties had come to specific findings that the defendants had failed to produce any document to prove their alleged title over the suit land, whereas the plaintiff claimed their title over the suit premises on the basis of registered sale deed dated 19.12.1975 (Ext.3) executed by the original owner Ram Bahadur Ram and Babu Lal in favour of the plaintiff. Hence it was rightly held that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land from its real owner. However, since no document of tenancy has been filed by the plaintiff to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the learned courts below were quite justified in holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. So far the question of possession is concerned, the learned courts below had found that the defendants were in possession of the suit land but their possession was permissive possession and as such the plaintiff having proved his right, title and possession over the suit land was fully entitled for recovery of possession as ad-valorem 4 court fee had already been paid. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)