IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.47 of 2007 ----------- The State of Bihar, through the Collector, Kishanganj, At + P.O. and District Kishanganj. …Defendant 1st Party..Appellant-Appellants versus 1. Ramdeo Sah, son of Ramkhelawan Sah, resident of Hospital Road, P.O. + P.S. and District Kishanganj …Plaintiff-Respondent Ist Party-Respondent Ist Party 2. Union of India through General Manager, N.F. Malingaon, Guahati. …Defendant 2nd party-Respondent 2nd party- Respondent IInd party. -------- For the appellants : Md. Anil Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G. 10 For respondent no.1 : Mr. Sarangdhar Jha, Advocate For respondent no.2: Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate. -------- 08/ 18.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent no.1 as well as learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. I.A. No. 1883 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing of this second appeal. Although learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contests the claim of the appellant but learned counsel for respondent no.2 (Union of India ) supports his contentions. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the appellant from filing this second appeal earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and delay in filing of the instant second appeal is condoned. 3. This second appeal has been filed by defendant no.1-appellant-appellant-State of Bihar challenging the judgments 2 and decree of both the courts below. 4. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 23 of 1988, which was filed by plaintiff-respondent-respondent no. 1 for declaration that he remained in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land in his own right continuously and openly to the knowledge of all concerned and had perfected his title by adverse possession and the defendants have no right, title or interest over the same. A further declaration was also sought that the entry of municipal survey khatian with respect to the suit land was wrong and collusive and the plaintiff cannot be evicted from the suit land on the basis of wrong municipal survey entry and also for a decree of confirmation of possession and injunction as well as other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by Subordinate Judge-II, Kishanganj vide his judgment and decree dated 21.12.1996. 5. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, defendant-appellant filed Title Appeal No. 24 of 1997, which was dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-V, Kishanganj vide his judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the judgments and decree of the courts below asserting that the plaintiffs have not claimed and the courts below have also not arrived at any finding with respect to the specific date, from 3 which possession of the plaintiff started and the date on which he got right and title perfected by adverse possession of the suit land for sufficient period of time. It was also claimed that the plaintiff was encroacher of the suit land and that an encroachment case was filed against him and hence he had no right to continue in possession of the suit land, which had devolved upon the State of Bihar after vesting of the Zamindari. 7. The specific claim of the plaintiff was that the suit was settled with him by the ex-land lord, namely, Nawab of Khagara before the vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar and since then he is in continuous peaceful possession of the suit land for 30-40 years since the time of his ancestors openly and to the knowledge of all concerned adversely to the right, title and interest of any person and hence he had acquired valid right of occupancy by adverse possession over the suit land. 8. Although no document showing settlement was produced, but several documents were on record to show that after vesting of Zamindari, Bujharat Panji of the suit land, which originally belonged to Nawab of Khagara, was prepared in the name of the plaintiff at serial no.18 (Ext. 9 series) and he remained in possession thereof as owner. The plaintiff had also produced certified copy of order dated 02.05.1972 (Ext. A), which fully proved the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further produced certified copy of the municipal survey khatian (Ext.7) with respect to the suit land along with a copy of order dated 14.06.1983 of the 4 authority concerned deciding Objection Case No. 27 of 1980 (Ext. 10). He also produced a municipal assessment notice with respect to the suit land ( Ext. 6) as well as a series of municipal receipts etc. and all these documents fully proved that he was in possession of the suit land since before the vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar. 9. On the other hand, at the time of vesting of the Zamdinari, the ex-intermediary had submitted his return with respect to the suit land, which was a proof as to whether it was a raiyati land or it was not a raiyati land, which vested in the State of Bihar. Such Returns remain in possession of the State of Bihar, but in the instant case defendant no.1-appellant, which was State of Bihar could not produce any such return, nor produced any subsequent order/proceeding to show the genuineness of its claim and hence the courts below were quite justified in drawing adverse inference due to non-filing of the relevant documents. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )