IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.112 of 2006 Ramashre Mahto son of late Kishori Mahto @ Ram Kishore Mahto, resident of village Parsauni, P.S. Pupari, District-Sitamarhi. ….Plaintiff-Respondent 1st party-Appellant. Versus 1.Banarsi Devi wife of late Bilat Mahto 2.Kailashiya Devi wife of Ram Sogarath Mahto 3.Binod Kumar Mahto son of Ram Sogarath Mahto 4.Indal Kumar Mahto 5.Pappu Kumar Mahto 4 & 5 minor sons of Ram Sogarath Mahto under the guardianship of mother Kailashiya Devi 6. Ram Lagan Mahto son of late Bilat Mahto All residents of village Parsauni, P.S. Pupari, District-Sitamarhi …Defendants-Appellants-Respondents 1st Party. 7.Most. Rita Devi wife of Late Ram Ekwal Mahto 8.Amit Mahto son of late Ram Ekwal Mahto 9.Priyanka Kumari daughter of late Ram Ekwal Mahto 8 & 9 both minors under guardianship of mother Most. Rita Devi- respondent no.7 All residents of village Parsauni, P.S. Pupari, District-Sitamarhi … Defendants-Respondents 2nd party-Respondents 2nd party. ----------- 08/ 03.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff-respondent- appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 13 of 1999, which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession with respect to one of the suit properties, for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the other suit property and also for declaration that the Khatian entry of the plots in question were not correct and the order of the Consolidation Officer in case No. 180 of 1976 be declared void and illegal as well as for other ancillary 2 reliefs. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Pupri at Sitamarhi vide judgment and decree dated 12.08.2004. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 17 of 2004 (28/05), which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Sitamarhi vide his judgment and decree dated 10.01.2006, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissing the claim and suit of the plaintiff. The instant second appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. After considering the pleadings and perusing the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below it is quite apparent that there was a decree with respect to plot no.2030 on the basis of compromise between the parties to that suit, but subsequently a Consolidation Case No 180 of 1976 was initiated and the same was decided against the predecessor of the plaintiff but the said order of the Consolidation Officer remained unchallenged and thus attained finality. The learned court of appeal below had very carefully gone through the respective claims and evidence of the parties and had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had claimed his title by settlement from ex-landlord, whereas the defendants claimed their title through sale deeds, but the plaintiff was unable to prove his title as well as the alleged possession and dispossession over the suit land by any reliable and valid material. It was also found that the plaintiff had been unable to prove any fraud and forgery practiced by the defendants in 3 obtaining the order from the consolidation authorities, although the burden of proof was squarely upon him to prove the same and his failure to do so falsified his entire claim, which was thus rejected. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal 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.)