IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.201 of 2009 1.Ram Prakash Paswan, Son of Late Raghubir Paswan. 2.Satya Narayan Paswan, Son of Late Raghubir Paswan. 3.Prahlad Paswan, Son of Late Raghubir Paswan. 4.Arun Kumar Minor Son of Late B.K.Paswan. 5.Tarun Paswan, Son of late B.K.Paswan. 6.Meena Devi ,Wife of late B.K.Paswan. All R/o village-Icharua Tola Kamathan, P.S. and Anchal Alauli, District-Khagaria.--------------Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants. Versus 1. Rajendra Sharma ,Son of Late Digambar Sharma. 2. Lokanath Sharma, Son of Late Digambar Sharma. 3. Upendra Sharma, Son of Late Digambar Sharma. 4. Manoj Sharma, Son of Late Digambar Sharma. 5. Yogendra Sharma @ Darogi Sharma, Son of Late Kali Sharma. 6. Birendra Sharma, Son of Late Kali Sharma. 7. Bisundeo Sharma, Son of Late Kali Sharma. 8. Subodh Sharma, Son of Late Kali Sharma. 9. Pramod Sharma, Son of Bisundeo Sharma. 10. Pankaj Sharma Minor Son of Birendra Sharma under the Guardianship of Birendra Sharma, his father and natural guarding and next friend. 11.Chhatrapati Sharma, Son of Yogendra Sharma, R/o village- Icharua Tola Kamathan, P.S. and Anchal Alauli, District-Khagaria. ------------Defendants/Respondent Ist Party/Respondent Ist Party. 12.Kailash Paswan, Son of Eamchoo Paswan. 13.Newa Paswan, Son of Eamchoo Paswan. 14.Vakeel Paswan, Son of Eamchoo Paswan. 15.Pappu Paswan Minor Son of Kailash Paswan ,his father, natural guardian and next friend. 2 16.Akhilesh Paswan minor son of Kailash Paswan ,his father, natural guardian and next friend. All R/o Village- Manaua, P.S.-Gogri, District-Khagaria at present Icharua Tola Kamathan, P.S. and Anchal Alauli, District- Khagaria. -------------Defendants/Respondent 2nd Party/Respondent 2nd Party. 17.Naresh Paswan, Son of Ramdeo Paswan. 18.Manoj Paswan, minor son of Naresh Paswan, under guardianship of Naresh Paswan, his father natural guarding and next friend. Both Residents of Village- Icharua Tola Kamathan, P.S. and Anchal Alauli, District-Khagaria. --------------------------------Defendants/Respondents/Respondents. --------------------- 7. 22.07.2011 Heard Mr. Dronacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal. The plaintiffs have filed the T.S.No. 66/86/03/92 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land described in Schedule I and in the alternative the recovery of possession has been prayed in case of possession. In short, the plaintiffs’ case is that they have acquired title and possession over the suit land on the basis of two sale deeds executed in their favour by the rightful owner namely Naresh Paswan having title over the same as he had been allotted the suit land in partition among his brothers and since after the 3 purchase they have coming in possession .The defendants’ case however is that the suit land was allotted to Govind Paswan and Janki Paswan who were other co-sharers of the plaintiffs and the Ex Landlord had filed rent suit wherein after the decree the suit land was put to auction sale and had been purchased by Kali Prasad Mandal in Execution Case No. 263 of 1940.The defendants are the descendants of the said auction purchaser as well as purchasers from those descendants. From the rival cases of the parties as noticed above, it is apparent that the crucial issue between the parties is as to whether the suit land had been put to auction sale and purchased by Kali Prasad Mandal as asserted by the defendants or whether the suit land was exclusively allotted to the plaintiffs’ vendor in partition among his brothers and has been validly purchased by the plaintiffs. The learned Sub Judge II, Khagaria considered the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties and came to the finding that the suit land had been put to auction sale in Execution Case No.263 of 1940 and purchased by Kali Prasad Mandal and further the sale certificate had been issued in pursuance to the auction sale 4 and the delivery of possession over the suit plot was also effected by the process of the court in favour of Kali Prasad Mandal. The learned court further came to the finding that manner of partition as asserted by the defendants was correct and the manner of partition as alleged by the plaintiffs was incorrect. On the basis of these findings, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the appellate court below examined the correctness of the judgment of the trial court in view of the submissions made by the appellants (plaintiffs) before it and after analyzing the pleadings and evidences on the record including the deposition of P.W.7, it came to the findings that the presence of rent suit, auction sale and the delivery of possession were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden in proving the same to be wrong. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there is absence of relevant pleading as well as material evidence on record and the findings recorded by both the courts below as such cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the appellants has emphasized that the rent suit, out of which the Execution 5 Case No. 263 of 1940 had arisen, had not been filed by the ex Landlord as claimed by the defendants and the sale certificate relied upon by the defendants is not a genuine document. He has further submitted that there are discrepancies in the number of the execution case and the delivery of possession had not been effected in that execution case in which the sale certificate has been issued and the discrepancies in other material documents also have not been considered by the courts below. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the judgments of the learned courts below it appears that both the courts below after considering the evidence on record have come to the concurrent finding that the suit land had been put to auction sale and purchased by Kali Prasad Mandal (predecessor in interest of the defendants) in whose favour the sale certificate had been issued and delivery of possession had been effected. Taking notice of the admission of the plaintiffs in the deposition as well as other documents, both the courts below have correctly concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to validly discharge their burden in establishing illegality or material irregularity in the sale certificate which is the basis 6 of the claim of the defendants. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh (V.Nath,J.)