IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.121 of 2003 MOHAN PRASAD & ORS. Versus SATYADEO PRASAD & ANR. For the appellants : M/s Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi and Ravi Shankar Dvivedi,Advocates. For the respondents : M/s U.K. Singh, Subodh Kumar Jha, Jitendra Kr. Pandey and Anjani Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 6/ 08.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of defendants- respondents-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 213 of 1987, which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-respondents for declaration that the plaintiffs had exclusive title and possession over the suit land and the same served as private Rasta for their egress and ingress in their house existing over the remaining purchased portion of suit plot nos.701 and 690 and further it served for light, air, ventilation and privacy of the said house of the plaintiffs and the defendants had no right to disturb the plaintiffs’ right over the suit land by opening any window or exit in their proposed house and for permanent injunction and also for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Bettiah, vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.1992, which was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No. 40 of 1992. The said title appeal was allowed by the learned 2nd 2 Additional District Judge, West Champaran vide his judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003, setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and also allowing the claim and suit of the plaintiffs. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower appellate court the defendants have filed the instant second appeal. From the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, it is quite apparent that it had considered the specific claims of both the parties as well as the evidence led by them. It further transpires that the learned lower appellate court had also considered the two reports of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner and had come to a definite finding that the report of Nurul Hassan survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was more reliable and trustworthy then the report of the other Pleader Commissioner. The said survey reports, maps and field book had been annexed to the memorandum of appeal as Annexures, 1, 2, 3 and from that it transpires that the learned court of appeal below had rightly relied upon the report of the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner dated 06.03.1989 and field book dated 25.09.1988, which clearly showed that two points were fixed for ascertaining the position of the suit land in accordance with law and thereafter specific measurement was made, whereafter it was found that the suit land was situated on whole R.S. Plot Nos. 701 and 690 and was not situated on R.S. Plot No. 700, which was also apparent from map attached to the field book. Admittedly, Plot Nos.701 and 690 belonged to the plaintiffs, whereas Plot No.700 belonged to the defendants. The said facts 3 were completely ignored by the learned trial court but the learned court of appeal below rightly considered the same and came to the conclusion that the suit land is part of 701 and 690 belonging to the plaintiffs and was not part of survey Plot No.700,which belonged to the defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs had right, title and possession over the suit land and learned court of appeal below rightly allowed the said claim of the plaintiffs. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)