IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.200 of 1993 1(a) Most. Gawanpati Devi widow of deceased Kedar Singh 1(b) Nand Kishore Singh 1(c) Brind Kishore 1(d) Kunal Singh 1(b) to 1(d) sons of deceased Kedar Singh, all residents of village Chhoti Tengraila, P.O. Amerpura, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna. 1(e) Smt. Mridula Devi W/o Sri Sheo Dhar Singh and D/o deceased Kedar Singh, resident of village Akhtiyarpur, P.O. + P.S. Pali Ganj, District Patna. …..Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Janakdeo Gope son of Late Bhekh Narain Gope, resident of village Chhoti Tengraila, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna……………Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellants : M/s Devendra Pd. Sharma, Sr. Advocate and Nawal Kishore Kashyap, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. No.2, Advocate. ----------- 14/ 24.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.58 of 1985, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Danapur vide his judgment and decree dated 19.03.1991. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the sole defendant in Title Appeal No.56 of 1991, which was 2 dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna vide his judgment and decree dated 06.02.1993. The aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties specifically found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent with regard to his possession had been proved and there was no valid and reliable material produced by the sole defendant in support of his claim of possession over the suit land. On the basis of the evidence of the parties, the learned courts below came to concurrent findings that undoubtedly the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since long which was supported by substantive evidence both oral and documentary. Since both the parties were claiming on the basis of settlement and the cause of action had lastly arisen on 09.11.1985, the suit having been filed on 30.11.1985 was clearly not barred by the Law of Limitation and hence both the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the suit as framed was maintainable and the plaintiff had valid cause of action for the suit. So far the question raised by learned counsel for the appellants in this court with regard to non-joinder of the State of Bihar which according to the appellants was a necessary party as the settlement 3 was claimed from the State of Bihar, is concerned, it is found from the judgment of the learned court of appeal below that point no.7 was specifically framed to decide as to whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties but from paragraph-14 of the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below it is quite apparent that the original appellant of this appeal, who was appellant in the title appeal also, did not press the said point at the time of haring of the appeal. Furthermore, since the defendant-appellant was claiming to be settlee of the State of Bihar and was contesting the suit, there was no occasion for impleadment of the State of Bihar. It appears that in the said circumstances the said point was not pressed by the original appellant in the lower appellate court but it has been frivolously raised in the instant second appeal. Finally the leaned courts below after considering all the facts and circumstances as well as the materials on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had valid title, interest and possession over the suit land and was entitled to get the relief sought for. 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)