IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.248 of 2006 RAMASHREY YADAV, son of late Saryug Yadav, resident of village Chhotepur, P.S. Siwan (Mufassil), P.O. Jiyay, District Siwan ... Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. JANKI DEVI wife of late Beni Ram 2. Anil Prasad, son of late Beni Ram Both resident of Mauza Mirganj Bazar, P.S. Mirganj P.O. Mirganj, District Gopalganj ... Plaintiffs- Opp.Party ----------- 7. 8.12.2010 Having heard counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment, inasmuch as the case of the defendant- tenant- petitioner of his being himself holder of title of the suit property has been gone into at length for recording a finding as with regard to relationship with the landlord and the tenant. Such finding relation to the title of the plaintiff- landlord- opposite party in respect of the suit premises has been necessarily invited by the petitioner- tenant, inasmuch as he had taken a plea that he was himself purchaser of the suit property. The court below has gone this aspect by examining the title of the vendor of the petitioner and thereafter has also looked into a Kirayanama which was executed 2 for occupying the house in question between the petitioner and the opposite party. After looking into all these aspects the court below has concluded that the vendor of the petitioner being not in possession of the suit premises he had no capacity and competence to execute such a sale deed and to fortify his such finding. He has gone into the correctness of the Kirayanama executed between the parties. Such detailed considerations in fact for deciding the issue of title incidentally leave nothing for this Court to reappraise the evidence especially when it is admitted at the Bar that the petitioner had already filed his own title suit being T.S.No. 148/2002 where the entire issue in the title suit will be gone into in the light of the evidence on record. This Court in fact would only observe that any incidental finding recorded herein or in the impugned judgment relating to title of the petitioner shall not prejudice him in his pending T.S.No. 148/2002. No other points having been urged, 3 this Court must hold that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error and consequently this civil revision application being devoid of any merit must be and is hereby dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/