IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.106 of 2004 Bhagwat Sonar S/o Late Karu Sah R/o Village Gopalpur, P.S. Khaira, District Jamui. ……..Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1(i). Most. Geeta Devi W/o Late Anandi Tanti 1(ii). Tinku Kumar S/o Late Anandi Tanti 1(iii). Kundan Kumar (minor) S/o Late Anandi Tanti All 1(i) to 1(iii) are residents of village and P.O. Gopalpur, P.S. Khaira, District Jamui. ……Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 1st set 2. Mostt. Sohagi Devi W/o Late Gajo Yadav 3. Sohan Yadav S/o Late Gajo Yadav 4. Shakuntala Devi daughter of Late Gajo Yadav 5. Khama Devi daughter of Late Gajo Yadav All 2 to 5 are R/o Village Gopalpur, P.S. Khaira, District Jamui. …..Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 2nd set. 6. Kunti Devi W/o Late Baldeo Modi R/o Village Salaiya Tola Kaniya, P.S. Khaira District Jamui. ……..Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 3rd set. 7. Jagaranath Sonar S/o Late Karu Sah R/o Village Gopalpur, P.S. Khaira, District Jamui. ……Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent 4th set. For the appellant : M/s Amar Prakash and Girjanandan Prasad, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 15/ 18.02.2010 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 both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.17 of 1983 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of his title and for confirmation of possession over 3 ½ decimals out of 11 ½ decimals of plot no.464. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Jamui vide his judgment and decree dated 18.01.1989. 2 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal No.08 of 1989 which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.I, Jamui, vide his judgment and decree dated 20.01.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, but it is quite apparent from the records that one Akkal Tanti was the recorded tenant of Plot No.464 measuring 19 decimals, who left behind two sons Budhu Tanti and Pairu Tanti who sold 04 decimals of the said plot jointly to Karu Halwai in the year 1930 and thereafter they partitioned the remaining 15 decimals of the said plot each of them getting 7 ½ decimals. Pairu Tanti died leaving behind his widow Punia Devi as his heir and legal representative who inherited his said 7 ½ decimals of the said plot and sold it by executing a registered sale deed dated 27.09.1969 in favour of Karu Sonar (predecessor of the plaintiffs) and Gajo Yadav (predecessor of the defendants). The plaintiffs claimed that although the said sale deed was executed in favour of Karu Sonar and Gajo Yadav, but in fact the purchaser was only Karu Sonar who had paid the consideration money and Gajo Yadav had nothing to do either with the said sale deed or with the suit land purchased by the said sale deed. 6. From the arguments as well as from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that although the said 3 sale deed was of the year 1969 in the name of both Karu Sonar and Gajo Yadav, but either the plaintiff or his predecessor never challenged the same for about 14 years or even thereafter. The plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1983 out of which this second appeal has arisen, merely for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession and hence the suit was only declaratory in nature and the contents of the sale deed (Ext.2) remained unchallenged till date. In the said circumstances and also in view of the specific evidence led by the defendants, it was quite apparent that the suit land measuring 7 ½ decimals was purchased jointly by Karu Sonar and Gajo Yadav and both the said purchasers had shares in the purchased property. In the said circumstances any evidence led by the plaintiff with regard to his possession, is absolutely meaningless, as possession of one co-sharer would legally be deemed to be possession of the other co-sharer. Hence, the learned courts below were quite justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title over the entire property purchased through sale deed (Ext.2) and even his plea of adverse possession had failed. Furthermore, the plaintiff-appellant had miserably failed to prove his exclusive title over 3 ¾ decimals of the suit plot either by payment of consideration or by adverse possession, as according to his own case he was in possession of the remaining 3 ¾ decimals of the purchased land. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this 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 4 question of law involved in this 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.)