IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.495 of 1999 Leelawati Devi @ Lila Devi wife of Mewa Sao resident of Mohalla Mohiuddin Nagar Amear, P.O. & P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda.……………Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus Shri Ruplal Sao S/o Late Budhan Sao resident of Mohalla Amber, P.O. & P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda at present, Mohalla Sai Sarai Town & P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda……………… …….Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellant :M/s Rajendra Kishore Pd. and Manojeshwar Pd. Sinha, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 10/ 19.11.2009 I.A. No.87 of 2008 has been filed on 07.01.2008 on behalf of the appellant for substituting the heirs of deceased sole respondent Ruplal Sao, who is said to have died on 21.12.2007 leaving behind four sons and four daughters as his heirs and legal representatives fully detailed in paragraph-1 of the interlocutory application. This interlocutory application is well within the statutory period of limitation and all the proposed heirs are major. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. Let the aforesaid heirs of deceased sole respondent be substituted in his place. I.A. No.6485 of 2009 has been filed on 14.10.2009 on behalf of the appellant for substituting the heirs of Respondent no.1(a) Jawahar Sao son of Late Ruplal Sao, who is said to have died on 22.07.2009 leaving behind his heirs detailed in paragraph- 2 of the interlocutory application. This interlocutory application is 2 also well within the statutory period of limitation and accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed. Let the aforesaid heirs of respondent no.1(a) be substituted in his place. A vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) on 16.11.2009 by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree passed by both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No.14 of 1991 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for eviction of the original sole defendant-respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the said eviction suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Biharsharif vide his judgment and decree dated 10.12.1993. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed Eviction Appeal No.01 of 1994 which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Nalanda vide his judgment and decree dated 06.09.1999. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently opposes the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below, but it is quite apparent from the facts and circumstances of 3 the case as well as the materials on record including the impugned judgments of the learned courts below that there were two main issues to be decided in the suit, namely the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties with respect to the suit properties as well as default in payment of rent by the defendant. Both the learned courts below considered all the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the parties in detail and came to the specific and clear conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove by any valid material that she was the landlord of the suit premises whereas the defendant was able to prove by valid material that he was in possession of the suit premises in his own right, hence there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also concurrently found by the learned courts below that in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record there was no question of any default in payment of rent by the defendant. The aforesaid findings of both the learned courts below are concurrent findings of facts based on full consideration and appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail and hence there is no occasion for this court to interfere with those findings in a second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below 4 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. However, any findings given by the learned courts below with respect to the title of one party or the other over the suit property are only incidental findings and the plaintiff is at liberty to file a suit with regard to title, which, if filed, has to be considered on its own merit. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )