IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.126 of 2007 1. Baleshwar Sah son of Late Narain Sah 2. Smt Saro Devi W/.o Baleshwar Sah Both resident of Village Danialpur Pargana Milki P.S.Teghra Dist. Begusarai Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Fudo Sah 2. Panna Devi D/o late Fudo Sah W/o Dilip Sah Both resident of Village Gudri Bazar Dalsingsarai P.S. Dalsingsarai Dist. Samastipur 3. Gopal Sah 4. Binod Sah 5. Shyam Sunder Sah All sons of Dukhan Sah 6. Miyatri Devi W/o late Dukhan Sah 7. Panchu Devi D/o late Dukhan Sah 8. Pradip Sah son of late Anup Sah 9. Smt Sundari Devi W/o late Rajendra Sah 10. Gita Kumari D/o late Rajendra Sah 11. Lahgru Sah @ Langru son of late Rajendra Sah 12. Parshuram Sah 13. Kanhaiya Sah 14. Mithilesh Sah all sons of late Ragho Sah All resident of Village Danialpur P.S.Teghra Dist. Begusarai 15. Abha Kumari D/o late Ragho Sah and W/o Ranjit Sah resident of Village Gaura P.S.Teghra Dist. Begusarai 16. Bibha Devi W/o Ajay Kumar resident of Village Bhagwanpur P.S.Bhagwanpur Dist. Begusarai 17. Ganesh Sah son of late Kishore Sah 18. Ram Dulari D/o late Hazari Sah 19. Sanjay Kumar 20. Sanjiv Kumar both sons of late Fudo Sah resident of Village Danialpur P.S.Teghra Dist. Begusarai Defendant Ist party-Respondent Ist party-Respondent lst party 21. Bibi Masooda Khatoon wife of Md Hatim @ Rudal resident of Village Niyamatpur Dargah Teghra Dist. Begusarai Defendant 2nd party-Respondent 2nd party-Respondent 2nd party ----------- For the Appellants: Mr Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------------- 05 12.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. - 2 - 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.89 of 1988 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for deceleration that they had acquired perfect title over the suit property on the basis of purchase by them and also for declaration that the defendants-respondents and their predecessor had no interest in the suit land and also for a decree of recovery of possession and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants-respondents-respondents and finally the said suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge V, Begusarai vide his judgment and decree dated 13.08.1999. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal no.4 of 2006 which was also contested by the defendants-respondents and after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) no. IV, Begusarai dismissed the said appeal, vide his judgment and decree dated 11.05.2007.The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the argument of the parties as well as the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that both the learned courts below carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and only thereafter came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ claim of title over the suit property was that they purchased from one Masuda who got the same in gift from Rasulan and the said Rasulan got it in gift from Domi but the plaintiffs could not produce any deed of gift executed by Domi in - 3 - favour of Rasulan nor there is any pleading that Rasulan inherited the suit property from Domi and hence the very origin of the claim of the plaintiffs was non-existent. The learned courts below also found that earlier Domi was raiyat of the suit land but he removed his structure and surrendered the land to the landlord before 1935 and after coming in possession the Ex-landlord settled the suit plot with Prameshwari Sah through document of settlement (exhibit Q) whereafter receipts were granted by the landlord to the settlees and the said receipts from 1935 to 1946 are exhibit N series. 6. The said Prameshwari Sah was predecessor-in- interest of Fudo Sah who was predecessor of the defendants and he filed Title Suit no. 59 of 1986 against one Udai Poddar for his eviction from the house in question and realization of rent on the basis of relationship of the landlord and tenant. The said suit was decreed and the judgment was produced in the instant suit as an exhibit which was rightly relied upon by the learned courts below. 7. Furthermore it is an admitted fact that the defendants are coming in continuous possession of the suit property since 1950 and the plaintiffs’ claim that they were in possession as tenants, but Title Suit no. 62 of 1981 filed by the vendor of the plaintiffs against Fudo Sah was dismissed and no step was taken by them thereafter nor there is any material to show that Fudo Sah or the purchaser was ever tenant of the plaintiffs as their vendor. Hence the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their title. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find - 4 - 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. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid