IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.256 of 2005 1. Tilo Ram. 2. Kamleshwari Ram 3. Kare Ram 4. Khagendra Ram Sons of late Bochai Ram 5.Most. Sugiya, wife of Late Rabbi Ram. 6. Birendra Ram @ Borhan Ram 7. Surendra Ram 8. Prakash Ram All resident of village Jamunia, P.S. Naugachhia, Dstrict- Bhagalpur. ---Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants. Versus 1. KrishnadeoBhagat 2. Ginni Bhagat 3. Parmanand Bhagat 4. Jamuna Bhagat Sons of late Banarasi Bhagat. 5. Most. Sitiya Devi, wife of late Mani Shankar Bhagat 6. Mantu Bhagat 7. Tantu Bhagat Both minor sons of late Mahesh Bhagat and they are represented by their mother natural guardian namely, Most. Sitiya Devi. 8. Mangan Bhagat. 9. Prahlad Bhagat Both sons of late Mahesh Bhagat. 10. Prakash Bhagat. 11. Manoj Bhagat 12. Dinesh Bhagat Minor sons of late Mahesh Bhagat and they are represented by their mother natural guardian, namely, Most. Rama Devi 13. Most. Ram Devi wife of late Mahesh Bhagat. 14. Bisundeo Bhagat. 15. Binod Bhagat 16. Ajai Bhagat 17. Bijai Bhagat Sons of late Ramautar Bhagat. 18. Sikandar Das 19. Tanuklal Das Sons of late Banarsi Das. 20. Govind Das son of late Mahabir Das 21. Jagat Bhagat 22. Shib Bhagat 2 Sons of late Ram Dahin Bhagat. 23. Meena Deviwife of Ram Briksha Bhagat 24. Nagina Bhagat 25. Rajendra Bhagat 26. Sanjai Bhagat sons of late RamBriksha Bhagat. 27. Shaheb Das 28. Nawal Kishore Das 29. Chhedi Das Sons of late Baldeo Das. 30. Moti Das son of late Thithar Das 31. Baijnath Bhagat son of late Ganga Bhagat 32. Kushi Chand Sukla son of late Tarni Shukla. All resident of village Jamunia, P.S.Nagachhia, District Bhagalpur. …….. Defendants- Respondents- Respondents. For the Appellants : M/S H.K.Kumar with Sidhendra Nrayan Singh and Mr. Ritesh Kumar Nr. Singh, Advocates. ----------- 8/ 16-12-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs- appellants – appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below 3. The matter arises out of T.S. No. 346 of 1986 which was filed by the plaintiffs- appellants for declaration of their title and also for declaration that the entry in the revisional survey khatian with respect to the suit land was wrong and also for confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession of the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Subordinate Judge- 2, Naugachhia vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1992. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1993 3 which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge- 3, Naugachhia by his judgment and decree dated 17.05.2005. In the instant second appeal the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below have been challenged. 5. From the averments made in this case as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the trial court found that the plaintiffs were claiming possession only on the basis of cadestral survey entries which were in the name of their ancestors. But they miserably failed to support their claim by any subsequent material such as Zamindari return, Jamabandi, mutation order etc. and hence they completely failed to prove their title and continuous possession over the suit land, whereas on the other hand, defendants 1st set were found to have deeds of title in their favour as well as the entry of their name in government records, including records of right , i.e., R.S. Khatian and defendants were also able to prove their possession over the suit land, specially when the plaintiffs claimed that they were dispossessed from the suit land on 15.07.1986 but neither in the plaint nor in the evidence it has been explained as to how they were in possession of the suit land before their dispossession. Furthermore, the defendants have been able to show by valid evidence that they had remained in uninterrupted continuous possession of the suit property since before the vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the Land Reforms Act due to which their names were duly recorded in the record of right. 6. Both the learned courts below after considering 4 the materials on record as well as the pleadings of the parties also came to the conclusion that the revisional survey proceeding commenced in the year 1969-70 and the revisional survey khatian was finally published on 05.01.1979 , whereas the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the said entry on 08.10.1986, i.e., more than six and half years after the publication of the revisional survey khatian. In the said circumstances the learned court of appeal below relying upon the provisions of the Limitation Act as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Gulzar Mahto and others Vs. Most. Ram Dulari Devi and others reported in 2001(3) P.L.J.R. 472 rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation. 7. In the said circumstances this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it found any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this state of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. BTiwary/ ( S. N. Hussain, J )