IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.343 of 2001 ----------- 1. Alisher Ansari, son of late Bangali Mian 2. Jalil Ansari, son of late Bangali Mian 3. Bibi Latefan daughter of late Bangali Mian All resident of Mauza Sonbarsa, P.S. Gopalpur, P.O. Sariswa, District West Champaran. 4(A) Bibi Jallakha wife of Mobarak Ansari, daughter of Babi Kabotra, vildlage and P.O. Bazar Puraina, P.S. Chanpatia, District West Champaran (Bettiah). 4(B) Bibi Maneza, wife of Alim Ansari, daughter of Bikabotra, village Guirwalia, P.O. Bharwatola, P.S. Mahuapool, District West Champaran. 4(C)Bibi Saiful, wife of Mansoor Ansari, daughter of Bibi Kabotra, resident of village Marchaiya, P.S. Manjaulia, P.O. Sariswa Bazar, District West Champaran. (Appellant no.4-Bibi Kabotra died on 6.2.1999 during the pendency of Money Appeal No. 1 of 1991 in the lower appellate court but no substitution could be made) 5. Bibi Haikna daughter of late Bangali Mian 6. Wasi Ahmad Ansari, son of Alisher Mian 7. Muslim Ansari , son of late Alisher Ansari All resident of Mauza Sonbarsa, P.S. Gopalpur, P.O. Sariswa, District West Champaran. … Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants versus 1(a) Ambeya Khatoon, wife of late Sk. Amanullah 1(b) Sk. Irfanullah, son of Sk. Amanullah Both resident of village Semra Madarsha, P.O. Shersiwa Bazar, P.S. Manjhaulia, District West Champaran 1(c) Syama Khatoon wife of Sk. Tabraj Alam, daughter of late Sk. Amannullah resident of village and Post Office GTadh Bahuari, P.S. Palanwa, District East Champaran. 1(d) Fuljhari Begum wife of Sk. Illayas daughter of late Sk. Amanullah, presently residing at village Semra Madarsha, P.S. Manjhaulia, P.O. Sariswa Bazar, District West Champaran. 1(e) Rinki Khatoon, wife of Sk. Sahid daughter of late Sk. Amanullah, resident of village Barhia Tola, P.O. Mahnawa, P.S. Manjhaulia, District West Champaran. 1(f). Tarnu Khatoon, wife of Sk. Sohail daughter of late Sk. Amanullah, resident of village Barhia Tola, P.O. Mahnawa, P.S. Manjhaulia, District West Champaran 2. Sk. Sainullah, son of late Md. Jan All resident of Mauza Sonbarsa, P.S. Gopalpur, P.O. Sariswa, District West Champaran. 3(A) Asma wife of late Sk. Nasarullah 3(B) Sk Rashid 3(C) Sk. Saheb 3(D) Sk. Eziullah 2 All sons of late Sk. Nasarullah, residents of village Sewira, P.O. Sariswa, P.S. Majhaulia, District West Champaran. 3(E) Kalima, wife of Sk. Manzoor, daughter of late Sk. Nasarullah resident of village & P.O. Rakhahi, P.S. Narkatiaganj, District West Champaran. (Respondent no.3 Sk. Nasarullah died on 8.11.1999 during the pendency of Money Appeal No. 1 of 1991 in the lower appellate court but no substitution could be made) 4. Lorik Raut, son of late Bagar Raut 5. Raj Mohammad Raut, son of late Bagar Raut 6. Paras Raut, son of late Bagar Raut 7. Isa Raut, son of Lorik Raut 8. Isaque Raut, son of Lork Raut 9. Israil Raut, son of lork Raut. All residents of Mauza Sonbarsa, P.S. Gopalpur, P.O. Sariswa, District West Camparan. …Defendants-respondents-respondents ------ For the appellants : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the respondents: M/s Md. Abu Haidar and Jahan Ara, Advocates ------ 08/ 26.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of plaintiffs-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Money Suit No. 4 of 1989, which was filed by plaintiffs-appellants for declaration that the defendants’ cutting and looting away of the paddy crops grown by the plaintiffs was illegal and the defendants were liable to pay cost of paddy and straw, detailed in Schedule-I of the plaint and also for a money decree of Rs.11,000.00 along with interest at the rate of 1% per month as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the Munsif, Bettiah, vide his judgment and 3 decree dated 22.12.1990. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Money Appeal No. 01 of 1991, which was also dismissed on contest by the Additional District Judge-II, West Champaran vide his judgment and decree dated 06.08.2001. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, but from the materials on record including impugned judgments and decree it is quite apparent that admittedly the suit land was recorded in R.S. Khatian as gairmazarua aam land under the coverage of Sikarahana river and that the ex-landlord was Ram Charitar Ojha and others and also that land of plot no.133 gradually came out of the bed of Sikarahana river. 6. The entire claim of the plaintiffs was dependent upon the alleged settlement of the year 1937 (Ext.2), but the executor of the alleged settlement, namely, Deomun Ojha has specifically stated vide Ext.-I that the suit land came out from the river about the year 1946 and hence there was no occasion of any settlement in the year 1937. It is also apparent that the said Deomun Ojha and the complainant had not even whispered regarding any settlement with the plaintiff in the year 1937 with respect to the suit land, which is major portion of the plot measuring 1 bigha 6 kathas and 19 dhurs. In the said circumstances, the courts below have rightly disbelieved the 4 claim of the plaintiffs, which was not supported by any other valid and reliance evidence. 7. So far question of payment of Government rent is concerned, both the courts below have rightly held that mere payment of rent cannot legally be a conclusive proof of possession and solely on the basis of payment of rent question of possession of the plaintiffs cannot be decided in absence of any other valid and reliable evidence with regard to possession. The said findings of the courts below are in consonance with the settled principle of law in this regard specially when the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession on the basis of their alleged settlement (Ext.2). 8. Both the courts below also considered the documentary as well as oral evidence of both the parties and found that there was no evidence of taking away straw worth Rs.1000.00 by the defendants or looting away 40 Kgs of paddy crop grown by the plaintiffs or that the plaintiffs ever grew paddy crop on the suit land. Hence, the defendants were legally not entitled to pay damages for any alleged loss to the plaintiffs or any interest thereupon. 9. The aforesaid findings of the courts below are covered by findings of facts and this court does not find any illegality in those findings. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at this stager of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )