IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.16 of 2009 Suraj Nath Chamar & Ors Versus Most.Mangari Kuar & Ors ----------- 7 20-7-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 3-12-2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Kaimur, Bhabua, in T.A.No. 39 of 1992/1 of 2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 8-7-1992 passed by the Munsif, Bhabua, in T.S.No. 107 of 1987. The plaintiffs, who have lost from both the courts below, had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession in the suit land and in the alternative it was also prayed that in case of dispossession, recovery of possession be ordered along with mesne profits. The further prayer was for directing the respondent 1st set to repay the amount of Rs.21,000/- in case of failure of the plaintiffs in getting the first relief. The facts relevant for the present appeal are that the plaintiffs are claiming the suit land on the basis of a sale deed, which had been executed in their favour by the defendant 1st 2 set with regard to the suit land. The defendant 1st set had filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. However, the defendant 2nd set contested the claim of the plaintiffs and had asserted their title and possession over the suit land. After considering the evidence and materials on record and the submissions of the parties, the Munsif, Bhabua, came to the finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit land rather the defendant 2nd set have adduced sufficient evidence to establish their possession over the suit land. The learned court has also held that the plaintiffs have failed to seek the relief with regard to the title and as such the suit was barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned court has also recorded the finding that the alternative claim against the defendant 1st set is only a pretext and collusive claim; and consequently the learned Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court considered the evidence and submissions of the parties and came to the categorical finding that the plaintiff-appellants have failed to produce any evidence to show their possession since after 1912. The appellate court has also come to the finding that the 3 plaintiff-appellants were fully aware regarding the entry in the revisional survey Khatiyan with regard to the possession of the respondent 2nd set over the suit land and inspite of that knowledge the sale deed was executed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that both the courts erred in law in not framing the issues properly, which has prejudiced the case of the plaintiffs and resulted in unfair trial. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs had adduced sufficient evidence on record to show their title and possession over the suit land, but the same have been ignored by the courts. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the judgments of both the courts below, it appears that both the courts below have discussed the evidence in detail and have reached to a concurrent finding against the title and possession of the plaintiffs on the basis of cogent evidence. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)