IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.64 of 2006 1. Dilip Ray @ Dilip Kumar Ray 2. Robin Ray @ Robin Kumar Ray 3. Sanjiv Ray @ Sanjib Kumar Ray All sons of , son of late Shakuni Ray, resident of Mohalla Keshopur(Mohanpur) P.O. and P.S. Jamalpur,District Munger ….Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants versus 1. Quamrul Hoda, President of Anjuman Ittehad Millat, Jamalpur, son of Late Md. Idris of Mohalla Walipur, P.O. and P.S. Jamalpur, District Munger …Defendant-Appellant-Respondent Ist Party 2. Md. Parvej Hassan, Secretary, Imam Bara, Khalasi Mohalla Mohanpur, P.O. and P.S. Jamalpur, son of Md. Amin Hassan resident of Mohalla Municipal Mohalla Khalasi Tola, District Munger. …Respondent- Respondent 2nd party. …….. For the Appellant : M/s Sushmita Mishra and Surya Narayana Sah, Advocates. For Respondents: M/s Abdul Mannan Khan and Md. Najmul Hoda, Advocates. ----------- 04/ 18.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs- respondents-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 3. The instant matter arises out of Title Suit No. 183 of 1986, which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the suit land and also for confirmation of possession and other ancillary reliefs. It may be noted that the aforesaid title suit was filed after about one year of the filing of Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1985 - 2 - by the defendants of the instant case against the plaintiffs. 4. The said Title Suit No. 183 of 1986 was decreed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge-VI, Munger by his judgment and decree dated 16.03.2002. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants of the aforesaid title suit filed Title Appeal No. 11 of 2002, which was allowed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court II, Munger by his judgment and decree dated 05.01.2006 and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with respect to their title. The said judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below is under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. The plaintiff-appellants had based their claim not on any document of title rather their claim is that they had been in occupation of the suit premises since the year 1951 and, thus, they had acquired right over the same on the ground of adverse possession. However, after considering the evidence on record both oral and documentary adduced by the parties, the learned court of appeal below arrived at a definite conclusion that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove their possession from the year 1951 nor did they - 3 - produce any material to substantiate the essential requirement of adverse possession, whereas, on the other hand, Ext. `N’, which is a decision in an earlier suit of 1952 with respect to the same premises, shows that there was another tenant of the defendants, who were litigating. The learned court below further found that the defendants had not been able to prove their right, title and interest over the suit premises by a series of documents, namely, Ext. A, Ext. B series, Ext. G series and Ext. K, out of which Ext. A was the Kiraynama between the defendants and the father of the plaintiffs, which proved the fact that the plaintiffs’ father was the tenant of the defendants on payment of monthly rent. It is also quite apparent that the defendants filed Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1985 for eviction of the plaintiffs father from the suit premises and only thereafter in the year 1986 the instant suit had been filed by the plaintiffs although there was nothing to prove their claim of title and adverse possession. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below and, - 4 - accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )