IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.188 of 2003 Baldeo Prasad, son of late Mukhlal Prasad, resident of village Mahamadpur Patti, P.S. Gautambudh Nagar, District Siwan. ….Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Versus 1. Arbind Singh 2. Anil Ranjan Singh @ Anil Ranjan 3. Sushil Kumar Singh 4. Veena Devi @ Biga Devi-wife 5. Umrawati Devi 6. Prabha Devi 7. Bachchi Devi. Nos.1 to 3 are sons, No.4 is wife and nos.5 to 7 are daughters of late Pateya Narayan Singh. All resident of village Mahamadpur Patti, P.S. Gautambudh Nagar, District Siwan. ….Defendant-Respondent-Respondent ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Mrs. Poonam Kumari and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: None. ------ 07/ 04.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 332 of 1992, which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of title, recovery of possession and also for declaration that the order passed under the provision of section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not binding upon the plaintiff as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was dismissed on contest without cost by learned Munsif-II, Siwan vide judgment and decree dated 05.11.1998. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal No. 133 of 1998(133/2003), - 2 - which was also dismissed by learned Additional Fast Track Court-I, Siwan on contest with cost vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2003. Both the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the main dispute was as to whether Ram Dayal Mahto was the son of Jugeshwar Mahto having 1/3rd share in the property left by Jugeshwar Mahto. The plaintiff has relied upon Ext. 5 as Zamindari rent receipt said to have been issued by the Malik in 1334 Fasli (1937 A.D.), in which Agnu, Ram Dayal and Foujdar were shown to have been paid rent, but the learned courts below after considering the matter in detail came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has admitted in his deposition that he had not filed the said receipt in any earlier litigation. It was also found that neither Jamabandi number is mentioned in the said receipt nor any one connected with that document, has been examined and it is sought to be proved only by a formal witness (P.W.5), who cannot be said to be competent to prove the said rent receipt. Furthermore, the said receipt was not issued in presence of any witness also as is clear from Ext.5 itself. Hence, learned courts below rightly rejected the said claim. 6. The learned courts below also found that Exts.C/3 and C/4 show that the lands comprised therein were acquired by Gorakh Mahto through Ext.`F’ and Gorakh Mahto, as donee, had acquired title and possession over the same. Furthermore, the possession of Gorakh Mahto was admitted through Ext.C/3 by Ramanand and Lakshman - 3 - and hence they were stopped from denying the same and setting up another case of title of Motia as their admissions will bind not only Ramanand and Lakshman but also the plaintiff-appellant, who is their successor in interest and the learned courts below rightly held that the plaintiff-appellant is stopped from denying the title of Gorakh Prasad or the defendant-respondent over the lands mentioned in Ext. F. 7. It was also found by the learned courts below that Ext. F and Ext.C/4 were all through acted upon, whereas, on the other hand Exts. 2,3,3A and 7, on which the plaintiff relied, had never been operative. Even the revenue functionaries found the defendants’ possession over the suit land, which was declared in the proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The learned courts below also found that the plaintiff himself has admitted that there is no document to prove title and possession of Motia and no authority has found his possession over 2 kathas, 14 dhurs of land as claimed by him and he also refused to take out a commission to prove the existence of the sub division in the said plot as claimed by him, whereas, on the other hand the evidence adduced by the defendants fully proved the possession of the defendants over the suit land as title holders. 9. The learned courts below rightly found that Exts. C, C/1 and C/2 are original registered documents of sale executed by Sheo Janak Singh, which is sufficient proof of separation among the three brothers and hence Sheo Janak Singh and sons of Ram Janak Singh have got interest and possession over the suit property and, thus, they - 4 - were necessary parties to the suit but they were not impleaded and as such their non-rejoinder was fatal for the suit, which was bad for non- joinder of the said parties. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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 the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )