IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.298 of 2002 KIRITI NARAIN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 05/ 24.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 147 of 1990, which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The claim of the plaintiff was that the land belonged to Mahant Mahavir Das as his private trust and he settled the same with one Chhotan Mahto in the year 1962 (1355 Fasli) whereafter by registered deed dated 12.07.1988(Ext.1) the heirs of Chhotan Mahto transferred the suit land to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession but subsequently he was dispossessed by defendants 4th party on the basis of Purcha issued under the provision of Ceiling Act. 5. The learned Munsif-I, Begusarai, dismissed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 23.03.1998, which was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal No. 11 of 1998. The said title appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Begusarai vide his judgment and decree dated 26.08.2002 against which the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 6. The main question involved in the suit was the title of the 2 plaintiff as the suit premises was admittedly not in his possession. According to the plaintiff, the original owner of the suit land was Mahant Mahavir Das, who had settled it to one Chhotan Mahto in the year 1962(1355 Fasli). If the said suit land was the private property of Mahant Mahavir Das he could not have transferred the same to any one except by way of a registered document and if the said property was a public trust, the said Mahant had not right to transfer the same to anyone except after following the relevant procedures prescribed in law. But there is nothing on record to show that either the alleged original owner Mahant Mahavir Das had executed any registered deed of transfer or there is any material on record to show that he had followed any due process of law for settling the suit land to Chhotan Mahto. In the said circumstances, the said Chhotan Mahto did not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit land nor he or his heirs was entitled to transfer the same to anyone else and hence the sale deed, which is said to have been executed by the heirs of Chhotan Mahto in favour of the plaintiff was ab-initio void and conferred no title on the plaintiff. Furthermore, the learned court of appeal below has specifically found that the said land was not recorded in the name of Mahant Mahavir Das or Chhotan Mahto, rather it was recorded in the Revenue Register in the name of Ramjeevan Das and the said Chhotan Mahto as well as his predecessor in interest never filed any objection thereto. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to 3 prove his title over the suit land. 7. It is to be noted here that since the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession, the onus was squarely upon him to prove his title over the suit land and he cannot succeed due to any weakness in the case of the defendants. In the instant case the plaintiff has failed to discharge the said onus and hence the suit filed by him was bound to fail. Furthermore, even the possession of suit land is with the intervener defendant on the basis of Purcha issued by the State of Bihar. Thus in view of the aforesaid considerations, any finding of the learned courts below that the suit was not barred under the provisions of Ceiling Act or under the provisions of Limitation Act or under the principle of estoppel cannot be of any help to the plaintiff. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)