IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.116 of 2006 1. SHIV SHANKAR MANDAL, SON OF LATE MURAL MANDAL. 2. BINITA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE MURAL MANDAL. RESIDENT OF MEDNIPUR, P.O. GOURA, P.S. LAXMIPUR, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 3. RASHMI DEVI, WIFE OF BENI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LATHANE, P.O. SUGGI, P.S. JAMUI, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 4. KAILI DEVI, WIFE OF MAHENDRA MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MARWA, P.S. AND DISTRICT-JAMUI. 5. VIRENDRA MANDAL, SON OF SUJIT MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KALA, P.S. LAXMIPUR, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 6. BENI MANDAL, SON OF BHOPAL MANDAL. 7. BALDEO MANDAL, SON OF LATE BHOPAL MANDAL. 8. HARI MANDAL, SON OF LATE CHETAN MANDAL. 9. RAJENDRA MANDAL, SON OF LATE RAGHU MANDAL. 10. SARJUG MANDAL, SON OF LATE RAGHU MANDAL. 11. KAILASH MANDAL, SON OF LATE BAIJU MANDAL. 12. NIRMA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE LAXMAN MANDAL. 13. SURESH MANDAL. 14. GANESH MANDAL. 15. SHAMBHU MANDAL. ALL SONS OF LATE LAXMAN MANDAL. ALL THE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MEDNIPUR, PARGANA PARBATPURA, P.O. GOURA, P.S. LAXXMIPUR, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 16. JHUNA DEVI, WIFE OF NUNLAL MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOKLI, P.S. SONO, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 17. CHAURSI DEVI, WIFE OF SITABI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHUWAN, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 18. KUNESHWARI DEVI, WIFE OF KASHI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARDI MOH, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 19. DULI DEVI, WIFE OF NARESH MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GHUGHALDIH, P.S. GIDOUR, DISTRICT-JAMUI. …………………………PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTS..APPELLANTS. Versus 1. ARJUN MANDAL, SON OF MOTI MANDAL. 2. PARWATI DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE KAMLESHWARI MANDAL. 3. ANGAD MANDAL, SON OF LATE KAMLESHWARI MANDAL. 4. BIRENDRA MANDAL, SON OF LATE KAMLESHWARI MANDAL. 5. SHANTI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE KAMLESHWARI MANDAL. ALL RESIDENTS OF PAHARCHAK , PARGANA-GIDHOUR, P.O. THINGANNA, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTRICT-JAMUI. ..DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS(FIRST PARTY)/RESPONDENTS. 6. GHANSHYAM MANDAL, SON OF LATE DHANASHDHANI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAUGE PRADHAN, P.O.JHINGAIO, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 7. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR, JAMUI. - 2 - 8. L.R.D.C., JAMUI, P.S. AND DISTRICT-JAMUI. 9. CIRCLE OFFICER, LAXMIPUR, P.O. LAXMIPUR, P.S. LAXMIPUR, DISTRICT-JAMUI. ….DEFENDANTS 2ND PARTY.. RESPONDENTS 2ND SET/ RESPONDENTS 2ND SET. --------- For the Appellants :M/s. Shri Prakash Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Rajiv Ranjan and S.K. Das, Advocates. For the Respondents:M/s. Radhey Shyam Prasad and Ramesh Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 11. 8.7.2009. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents. The appellants herein, being the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.1 of 2004, sought the relief of declaration of their right, title and interest over Scheduled-II lands, correction in the records of right and decree for permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on a finding that the plaintiffs were not the legal title holders of the suit property on the strength of being heirs of khatiyani raiyat and that the orders passed by the Circle Officer, L.R.D.C. and the Collector, Jamui in respect of mutation of names in favour of the defendants –Ist set over the suit lands was legal and valid. Appeal was preferred thereagainst, being Title Appeal No.1 of 2004, before the lower appellate court who vide its judgments and decree dated 24.1.2006 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the finding of the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellants sought to raise three issues which require consideration by this Court, namely, (i) whether the judgment passed by the courts below in complete non - 3 - consideration of deposition of witnesses is permissible in the eye of law?, (ii) whether the failure of onus to prove relationship by the defendants with deceased Bhagelu Manjhi is permissible? and (iii) whether the findings as arrived by the learned trial court that the order of Revenue Court will operate as resjudicate? None of these issues have any bearing and are substantial questions of law which are required to be considered in this Second Appeal. The plaintiff is required to prove his own case by leading cogent evidence, whether oral or documentary, in support of his case and he can not by any means seek success by disproving the claim of the defendants. In that view of the matter, I find no apparent substantial questions of law which are required to be discussed by this Court in Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)