IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.4 of 2008 ----- Bibi Hadisa Khatoon, W/o Tahir @ Chatnaila, resident of Village- Bhauwara, Mohalla-Manihar, Ward No.-19, New-17, Dist.-Madhubani. -- Defendant—Appellant—Appellant. Versus 1. Md. Aftab 2. Md. Sajid 3. Md. Sahid 4. Md. Jakir 5. Md. Shakir All sons of Late Md. Nasir 6. Bibi Sima, W/o Md. Munna All resident of Village-Bhauwara, Mohall-Mahihar, Ward No.19, New-17, Dist.-Madhubani.—Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the appellant : M/s. Namrata Mishra & Ratnakar Jha, Advocates For the respondents: M/s Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate, Saba Ashfaque, Deepak Kumar Singh & Abdul Aziz, Advocates. ------ 06. 11.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the sole defendant-appellant-appellant challenging judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.08 of 1987 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises which is a house and also claiming that if the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant is not established, the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land be declared and decree for possession be passed and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Madhubani, vide his judgment and decree dated 07.01.1991 holding that the plaintiffs had title over the suit - 2 - land and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed Title Appeal No.06 of 1991 which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madhubani, vide his judgment and decree dated 10.10.2007. The aforesaid judgments and decree of both the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal at the instance of the sole defendant. 5. From the averments made by the parties and the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it appears that the plaintiffs claimed the suit premises on the basis of document of a title and that the defendant is coming in possession of the suit premises since 27.08.1986 as a tenant, whereas the defendant claimed his possession over the suit property from 1957-58 stating that he had acquired title in the suit property, but the learned courts below specifically found that the defendant failed to produce any document or paper to prove his title or even to show that he was in possession since 1957-58 on the basis of his independent title. 6. The learned courts below have also found that the witnesses of the plaintiffs fully proved the factum of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and even according to the claim of the defendants, if his possession is not as that of a tenant, his possession would be that of a trespasser and in any view of the matter, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recovery of possession of - 3 - the suit premises. 7. The case is covered by concurrent findings of fact and this court does not find any 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)