IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.481 of 2009 Ram Briksh Lohar Versus Shyam Narayan Lohar ----------- 3 14-7-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 22-8-2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, First Track Court II, Kaimur, Bhabua, in Title Appeal No.24 of 2005/ 29 of 2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 15-3-2005 passed by the Munsif, Kaimur, in Title Suit No. 64 of 2004. The plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 64 of 2004 praying for eviction of the defendant from the suit room and for recovery of Rs.60/- only by way of arrear of rent. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff, which fact has been established by the evidence on record. Although the defendant did not appear in the suit, the learned Munsif examined the evidence as produced by the appellant, and after hearing the appellant(plaintiff) he came to the finding that the defendant was not the tenant of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree an appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 24 of 2005/29 of 2005 was filed. The appellate court considered the evidence on record as well as the submissions 2 made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant and concurred with the finding of the trial court that the story of inducting the defendant as tenant in the suit room, as propounded by the plaintiff, had not been proved by the plaintiff, and consequently the appeal was dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and considering the judgments under appeal, I do not find any substantial question of law involved/arising in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at this stage. roy ( V. Nath, J.)