IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.345 of 2004 Deo Pujan singh son of Janak Singh, resident of village Agahara, Pargana Goa, P.O. Gaura, P.S. Marhowrah, District Saran at Chapra …………Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Versus 1. Jugeshwar Mahto 2. Sheo Dayal Mahto 3. Harendra Mahto 4. Naresh Mahto 5. Nag Narain Mahto 6. Binod Mahto Sons of Sheo Pujan Mahto, deceased 7. Smt. Murti Devi W/o Sheo Pujan Mahto, deceased. 8. San Kesha Devi 9. Kamal Devi Daughters of Sheo Pujan Singh, deceased 10. Most. Dhana Devi W/o Sarjug Mahto, 11. Anil Mahto 12. Sunil Mahto 13. Dinesh Mahto Sons of Sarjug Mahto, deceased 14. Shakuntala Devi D/o Sarjug Mahto, deceased 15. Rina Devi D/o Sarjug Mahto, deceased 16. Sunita Devi D/o Sarjug Mahto, deceased, All residents of village Agahara, Pargana Goa, P.S. Marhowrah, P.O. Gaura, District Saran at Chapra ………Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellant : M/s Arun Kumar Prasad and Kapildeo Singh, Advocates. For the respondents : None ----------- 06/ 27.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.26 of 1986 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for partition of his alleged half share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. 2 The aforesaid title suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif-III, Saran vide his judgment and decree dated 20.12.1989. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.14 of 1990 (09/2002) which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Saran vide his judgment and decree dated 15.09.2004. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of both the learned courts below, it transpires that learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the specific conclusion that no doubt Kuldip Mahto was sikmidar of the disputed land but his sikmi right was terminated by the kashtakar Mahadeo Mishra due to non-fulfillments of the conditions agreed in the compromise and accordingly Mahadeo Mishra took back the sikmi land. It was also found that in due course of time Mahadeo Mishra sold the suit land to Murti Devi (wife of defendant no.1) who came in possession as exclusive owner thereof and Jamabandi No.334 was created in her name and she regularly paid rents and was duly recorded in the records of right (Ext.1), whereas the plaintiff absolutely failed to show that he had any semblance of interest or possession in the suit property. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties the learned courts below also found that there was no unity of title and possession between the parties, as the plaintiff could not prove by any reliable material that any interest transcended to him nor any material was 3 produced to support his claim although plaintiff’s case had to stand on its own leg. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the findings of the learned courts below are concurrent findings of facts and 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)