IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.171 of 2004 MAHADEO RAUT & ORS Versus SURYA NARAYAN RAUT & ORS ----------- 09/ 09.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This Second Appeal has been filed on behalf of defendant- appellant-appellants challenging judgment and decree dated 06.04.2004, by which learned Additional District Judge-cum-F.T.C.- II, Jamui, dismissed Title Appeal No.08 of 1990 and affirmed judgment and decree dated 29.05.1990, by which the learned Munsif, Jamui, dismissed Title Suit No. 32 of 1985 filed by the appellants. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiff-appellants for declaration of their title as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the sons of Rameshwar Rawat, whereas, defendant no.1 Surya Narayan Rawat was son of Bechan Rawat and both the aforesaid persons, namely, Rameshwar Rawat and Bechan Rawat were sons of Saukhi Rawat from his two wives. It was also claimed by the plaintiff-appellants that the suit lands along with other lands were auctioned for execution of a rent decree and were purchased by the landlord, who subsequently settled 1 acre 8 decimals thereof with the father of the plaintiffs, namely, Rameshwar Rawat during Zamindari. He further submits that after vesting of Zamindari, Jamabandi was opened in the name of Rameshwar Rawat and after his death the plaintiffs inherited the same as his heirs and legal representatives and are coming in peaceful possession and have been paying rent to the State of Bihar and getting marfati receipt up to the - 2 - year 1981. It was also claimed that defendant no.1 with the help of Anchal employees got his name entered in Register-II of the State by way of order dated 30.09.1981 behind back of the plaintiffs, who challenged the said order in appeal and revision, but the same were dismissed. The claim of the plaintiff-appellants was contested by the defendant-respondents and their claim was that the suit property exclusively belonged to Saukhi Rawat, common ancestor of both the parties and lands were mortgaged and the mortgage was redeemed by Bechan Rawat and in his life time Rameshwar Rawat remained with his half brother and there was no partition between them and hence the lands remained the lands of joint family, in which both sides had equal share. The aforesaid title suit was dismissed and the title appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants was also dismissed. The learned courts below considered the entire matter in detail and specifically found that plaintiff no.1 himself admitted that his father Rameshwar Raut died before 1950, whereas Saukhi Rawat died thereafter in 1952 and as such there was no question of partition between Rameshwar Rawat and Bechan Rawat. It was also found that the plaintiffs claimed that the ex-landlord was one Sitaram Prasad, whereas, Hukumnama was given by one Badam Kumari, but there was nothing on record to connect Badam Kumari with Sitaram Prasad. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below rightly discarded the Hukumnama, which was not fit to be relied upon due to its inherent - 3 - inconsistency. The learned courts below have also found that the plaintiffs miserably failed to establish that the suit land was in their exclusive possession. It was in natural course that after the death of Saukhi Rawat, Rameshwar Rawat and Bechan Rawat, the names of defendants were also recorded in Register-II. Hence, the said Register-II cannot be said to be illegal. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned courts below nor does this Court find any substantial question of law involved in the instant Second Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )