IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.140 of 2005 Jagdish Singh Son of Late Shital Singh resident of Village Gopalpur P.S. & Anchal Akbarpur Dist. Nawada Versus 1. Fulwa Devi W/o Parmeshwar Rajwar 2. Bindeshwar Rajwar @ Madan Son of Late Parmeshwar Rajwar 3. Sumitra Devi daughter of Late Parmeshwar Rajwar 4. Rita Devi daughter of Late Parmeshwar Rajwar all resident of village Manebigha P.S. & Anchal Manebigha Dist. Nawada 5. Shaila Devi D/o Late Parmeshwar Rajwar resident of village Manebigha P.S. & Anchal Akbarpur Dist. Nawada 6. Kishum Pandey 7. Awadhesh Pandey Both sons of Late Guru Shahay Pandey alias Gurudayal Pandey resident of village Pakari P.S. & Anchal Akbarpur Dist. Nawada 8. The State of Bihar through Collector, Nawada 9. Anchal Adhikari , Akbarpur Dist Nawada ----------- For the appellant: Mr Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate For the respondents: None ---------- 10 18.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.108 of 1991 (126 of 1997) which was filed by the plaintiff- appellant- appellant for declaration that the defendants had no right, title and possession, over the suit land and for declaration that the revisional survey entry with respect to the suit land was null and void and also for confirmation of plaintiff’s possession and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional Munsif II, Nawada vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.1998. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal no.23 of 1998(32 of 2003) which - 2 - was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge IV, Nawada, vide his judgment and decree dated 15.02.2005. The aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the argument and the materials on record including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that both the learned courts below had examined the pleadings and evidence of the parties and thereafter came to the finding that according to the appellant the suit land belonged to Gogul Rajwar and others from whom it was purchased by Yamuna Singh vide deed of transfer (exhibit 4/A) and subsequently the said Yamuna Singh sold it to Sunder Kuer and others, out of whom Sunder Kuer was widow of Late Rami Singh who was grand father of the plaintiff. The learned courts below further found that the plaintiff while deposing as PW 4 himself in paragraph 3 of his deposition admitted the case of the contesting defendants that the grand father of the plaintiff was Bihari Singh whose son was Shital Singh the father of the plaintiff and hence neither Rami Singh was grand father of the plaintiff nor could he inherit anything from the wife of Rami Singh. Hence the learned courts below found that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove that he had any title over the suit land. The learned court below also found that name of Prameshwar Rajwar the vendor of the defendants was duly recorded in the revisional survey khatiyan and they had even proved their right, title and possession over the suit property whereas the plaintiff had failed to prove his case. - 3 - The learned courts below also found that no ad valorem court fee was paid by the plaintiff although Saristedar reported that ad valorem court fee was payable as besides deceleration of absence of title and possession of the defendants, the plaintiff had also sought for confirmation of his possession over the suit land which is a consequential relief and hence the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court fee in the suit and the appeal but no such court fee was paid. The learned courts below also held that although the State of Bihar was a party defendant in the suit no statutory notice as required under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was sent and hence the suit was bad on those accounts also. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no 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. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid