IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.114 of 2007 . ----------- Chhotelal Mandal, son of late Jagdish Mandal, resident of village Tajpur, P.s. Kharagpur, District Munger. …Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1. Binod Pal 2. Panchanand Pal Both sons of late Bateshwar Pal 3. Pappu Pal 4. Dilip Pal Both sons of Mahendra Pal 5. Devendra Pal 6. Suresh Pal Both sons of late Kishun Ram Modi, All resident of Mohalla Ariganj, Lehonagpur, P.S. Kharagpur, District Munger. 7. Satya Nand Singh, son of Dukhan Singh resident of village Tajpur, P.S. Kharagpur, District Munger. 8. Rajo Yadav 9. Sanjay Yadav 10. Raghu Yadav All sons of late Jagdeo Yadav Resident of Mohalla Malia, Shankarpur, P..S. Muffasil, District Munger. 11. Lakhan Bind, son of Naresh Bind, resident of village Tajpur, P.S. Kharagrpur, District Munger. ……. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents ------- For the appellant : M/s Awadhesh Prasad Sinha and Kumar Mritunjay Narain, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ------- 07/ 23.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 20 of 1991, which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the 2 plaintiff and also from changing the physical features of the suit land as well as other ancillary relief. The said suit was dismissed on contest by Munsif-I, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated 22.04.2004. 3. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 31 of 2004, which was allowed in part with respect to plots no.90 and 233, whereas, it was dismissed on contest with respect to the remaining suit lands by the Additional District Judge-I, Munger vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned court below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, but from the said judgments it is quite apparent that the trial court had rejected the claim of the plaintiff-appellant with respect to all the suit plots including plots no. 90 and 233, whereas, the court of appeal below allowed the claim of the plaintiff-appellant with regard to plots no. 90 and 233 and rejected his claim with regard to other plots involved in the suit. 5. From the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below, it transpires that the court of appeal below has found that the plaintiff was the sole heir of the khatiani tenant and there was no material to show that plots no.90 and 233 were ever transferred by any of his ancestors and as such they were still with the descendant of the khatiani tenant, namely the plaintiff, who had valid right and title over the same. 6. However, with respect to the remaining plots in suit 3 the lower appellate court has very carefully gone into the pleadings and evidence of the parties and had found that Etwaria was the ancestor of the plaintiff and she sold the said lands to Kishun Ram Modi by registered deed (Ext.D), whereafter the name of the purchaser was mutated and rent receipts (Exts. A series) were granted to him and it is also proved that the defendants were dealing with the said lands and sold portions of it to different persons by registered deeds (Exts. B series), whereafter the said purchasers were mutated and rent receipts were issued in their names and they were found to be in possession of their respective purchased lands. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff cannot legally raise any claim over any ancestral lands, which were sold by his ancestors much earlier. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )