IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.279 of 2004 SALAMTULLAH ANSARI @ SALAMAT ANSARI&ANR Versus MONAF MIAN & ORS ----------- 07/ 24.06.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of affirmence. Title Suit No. 263 of 1981 was filed by the appellants for declaration of their title over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.1991, which was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No. 54 of 1991, which was also dismissed by the learned court of appeal below by judgment and decree dated 23.04.2004. The plaintiffs have challenged the said judgment and decree in the instant second appeal. Both the learned courts below have considered the matter in detail and have found that although the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 24.05.1979 from a person, who, according to them, owned the suit property as their ancestral property, but the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit property. Learned courts below have also found that although the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had dispossessed them but the said pleading could not be proved, whereas, on the other hand, the defendants claimed to be in possession of the suit property since 1933, which has been duly proved and in addition to that the land in suit had also been settled with the defendants under the provision of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, - 2 - 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) and the defendants are paying rent and obtaining rent receipts. Learned courts below have also relied upon section 18 of the Act, according to which the order passed under the said Act is final and no suit shall lie in any civil court to vary or set aside any such order except on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction. Although learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the said order was passed just three weeks after the filing of the suit but neither any case of fraud or want of jurisdiction is made out. In the said circumstances, no substantial question of law is made out and the judgment and decree under challenge are covered by the findings of fact and, accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )