IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.103 of 2004 1. Hari Shankar Prasad @ Hare Shankar Pd. 2. Lallan Prasad Both sons of Late Suraj Prasad. 3. Fulwanti Devi, daughter of Late Suraj Prasad, All residents of village Sikandarpur, Pargana-Bara, P.S. Barharia, at present Gautam Budha Nagar, P.O. Hariharpur, Lalgarh, A/P. Sikandarpur, District-Siwan. …..Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. V e r s u s 1. Rajpati Prasad 2. Rajendra Prasad 3. Satyendra Prasad 4. Chandrabanshi Prasad All are sons of Late Gayani Prasad 5. Anandi Devi, wife of Late Gayani Prasad, W/o Indal Prasad alive. 6. Chatesiya Devi, daughter of Late Radhika Prasad, wife of Late Bindeshwar Prasad. 7. Jai Narain Prasad, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad, All residents of village Sikandarpur, Pargana-Bara, P.S. Barharia at present P.S. Gautam Budha Nagar, P.O.-Hariharpur, Lalgarh, A/P. P.O. Sikandarpur, District-Siwan. …..Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellants : M/s Surendra Pd. Singh and Satyendra Narayan Verma, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 08/ 22.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 96 of 1981, which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the suit land and also for confirmation of possession and injunction along with other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by 2 the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Siwan, vide his judgment and decree dated 28.11.1992. The said judgment and decree of the learned trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs-appellants in Title Appeal No.45 of 1992 (140/03), which was also dismissed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-cum-1st Additional Fast Track Court, Siwan vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2004. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the averments as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below considered the entire matter in detail along with respective evidence of the parties, whereafter it was specifically found that Somaria was allotted her share vide decree in Partition Suit No. 96 of 1948 whereafter she was put in possession of the land in question and she throughout dealt with the property. It was also found that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove their right, title and possession over the suit land by any cogent evidence. The learned courts below also found that the plaintiffs wanted to take benefit from the litigation in which Somaria was not a party, but they miserably failed whereas the defendants fully proved their right, title and interest in the suit property on the basis of deeds of gift as well as their continuous possession over the suit land. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the 3 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.)