IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.259 of 2009 Ramotar Yadav & Ors Versus Nago Yadav & Ors ---------------------------------- 17 20-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment of affirmance . The plaintiffs had filed the title suit for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession over the suit land described fully in the Schedule of the plaint. The plaintiffs have based their claim of title on the basis of the settlement from the ex-landlord in the year 1955 and have asserted that the ex-landlord had submitted return in their favour and thereafter Register II has been prepared by the State of Bihar in their names and since thereafter they are paying rent and getting rent receipts. The plaintiffs have stated that they had been forcibly dispossessed by the defendants and as such the relief for recovery of possession has also been sought. The defendants in their turn have claimed their title on the basis of sale of the year 1962 but stating that no document of sale could be prepared at that time. They have further relied upon the sale deed of the year 1994 executed 2 during the pendency of the suit in support of their claim of title contending that as there was no sale deed in the year 1962, so this sale deed in the year 1994 was executed. The trial court considered the evidence and submissions of the parties and on the basis of Ext.4 showing mutation of the names of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit land and Ext.2 series( the rent receipts from the year 1957 till 1997) came to the finding that the plaintiffs had been in legal possession of the suit land. The court also considered Ext.X , which is the report showing that no return was available with the State of Bihar with respect to Plot no.991. While considering the evidence of the defendants the trial court found absence of mutation and recent receipts and further absence of documents of title of the year 1962 as asserted by the defendants. Further, on the basis of appreciation of other evidence including oral evidence the trial court found that the defendants had illegally and forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs. In appeal, the appellate court after appreciation of the relevant evidence and the submissions of the parties has upheld the assertion of the plaintiffs and concurred with the findings of the trial court. 3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there could not have been a settlement by the ex-landlord in the year 1955, as claimed by the plaintiffs in view of the fact that the Zamindari was abolished in the year 1950 itself. It has further been submitted that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and misconstrued the material documents. The perusal of the impugned judgments of both the courts below show that the conclusions arrived at by them have been based upon appreciation of evidence of both the parties. No perversity in the findings of the courts below could be pointed out or established in this appeal. There is no pleading on behalf of the defendants/appellants regarding the date on which the notification regarding vesting of Zamindari(estate) of the concerned landlord was made in pursuance of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, because it is only after the required notification that the vesting could have come in effect. In absence of the date of notification it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the settlement made in favour of the plaintiffs by the ex- 4 landlord was without jurisdiction. The creation of Jamabandi in favour of the plaintiffs soon after the settlement and the continuous payment of rent by them to the State of Bihar for the settled land(suit land) are sufficient to establish the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land before their dispossession, whereas the defendants have failed to establish and justify the validity of their possession over the suit land. The issues arising in this appeal are concluded by the concurrent findings of fact. There is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal for consideration, which is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)