IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.44 of 2000 1. Most. Chandrawati Devi wife of Late Munshi Das @ Prasad, resident of village Oriyawan, P.S. Ekanger Sarai, District Nalanda. 2. Awadhesh Prasad son of Late Munshi Prasad, resident of village Oriyawan, P.S. Ekanger Sarai, District Nalanda. ……Defendants-Respondents-Appellants. Versus Shree Arbind Mandal son of Shree Ragho Das, resident of village Maintola Kaushik Nagar (a) Koriya Bigha, P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda. …Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the respondent :None. ----------- 13/ 03.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- respondents-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.285 of 1987 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-respondent for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession with respect to the suit land detailed in Schedule-II of the plaint and also for permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by Subordinate Judge-II, Hilsa vide his judgment and decree dated 17.06.1991. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.48 of 1991 which was allowed on contest by the Additional District Judge, Hilsa vide his judgment and decree dated 31.03.1999 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the claim and suit of the 2 plaintiff. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the court of appeal below the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and raises the questions of title and possession on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties, but from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below it is quite apparent that the court of appeal below after considering the entire pleadings and evidence of the parties specifically Exts.F and G of the defendants and Exts.1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 13/A and 15 came to the specific conclusion that Nanhaki Devi was the wife of Kishun Das and Lakshaminia Devi was the wife of Hitlali Das which was fully supported by valid and reliable evidence. On the other hand, the finding of the trial court that defendant no.1 Chandrawati was daughter of Kishun Das through Lakshaminia Devi was clearly not based on the evidence adduced by the parties, as Kishun Das was fully proved to be the husband of Nanhaki Devi, whereas Lakshaminia Devi was fully proved to be the wife of Hitlali Das. 6. It was also found that in Ext.7 executed by defendant no.1 herself showed Ragho Das to be in the northern boundary of the vended plot and proved that the suit land situated adjacent north to the vended plot belonged to Ragho Das and not to Lakshaminia Devi or anybody else. Furthermore, the deed of gift dated 06.11.1981 (Ext.1/A) executed by Hitlali Das in favour 3 of the plaintiff clearly proved that the plaintiff had acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit land, as the execution of the said deed of gift had remained unchallenged. So far the question of possession is concerned, the plaintiff had admitted that he was dispossessed after the aforesaid deed of gift and had filed the suit in the year 1987, whereas the defendants having not claimed title by adverse possession, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recovery of possession of the suit land as directed by the court of appeal below. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate court 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. )