IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.92 of 2007 1. Banaras Rai 2. Rakatu Rai 3. Ramkrit Rai All sons of Late Ram Sunder Rai resident of Village Ambakala Pargana Babara P.S. Piprarhi PO Ambakala Dist. Sheohar Defendants- Appellants- Appellants Versus 1 (i). Ramia Devi w/o Sri Chand Rai resident of Village Ambakala Pargana Babara P.S. Piprarhi PO Ambakala Dist. Sheohar (ii) Rikhi Devi wife of Devendra Rai resident of Village Ashopur P.S. Purnahiya Dist. Sheohar (iii) Anandi Devi @ Nankhi Devi wife of Binod Rai resident of Village Kothia P.S. Punahiya Dist. Sheohar 2. Harindra Rai resident of Village Ambakala Pargana Babara P.S. Piprarhi PO Ambakala Dist. Sheohar Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents ----------------------- For the appellants: Mr Vindhya Keshari, Senior Advocate with M/s Ranjana Sinha and Neeraj Kumar, Advocates ------------------- 07/ 18.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.08 of 2001 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession with respect to Schedule I of the plaint along with mesne profit and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif, Sheohar vide his judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants-appellants filed Title Appeal no.28 of 2004(36 of 2006) which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge- Fast Track Court No. I, Sheohar (Sitamarhi), vide his judgment and - 2 - decree dated 20.03.2007. This second appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 5. Although learned counsel for the defendants- appellants vehemently challenges the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below on various grounds but from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record including impugned judgments, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail and thereafter have passed their aforesaid judgments. 6. The findings of the learned courts below are also based on specific pleadings and evidence as had been dealt by the learned courts below who concurrently found that the land in dispute covered the present one decimal of land from which the plaintiffs was dispossessed by the defendants and prior to dispossession the land was in possession of the plaintiffs. It was also found that names of the defendants or their predecessors did not figure in the last survey khatiyan but names of the plaintiffs ancestors were recorded therein and no objection was ever filed by anyone against the same. Furthermore, the Government of Bihar recognized the plaintiffs as valid raiyats of revisional survey plot no. 3405 and granted a rent receipt. Although rent receipt or mutation are not documents of title but the said documents along with survey khatiyan clearly proved that the plaintiffs’ possession was on the basis of their independent right and title to disprove which no valid material or evidence was produced by defendants. 7. So far the question of adverse possession is - 3 - concerned, the learned courts below have concurrently found that the defendants could not prove adverse possession by any valid material and in any view of the matter, no person can simultaneously claim title to the suit property as well as possession adverse to the interest of the other side as in that case title of the other side has to be admitted. Both the learned courts below on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties gave concurrent findings of facts that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit land in Bhaiskah, 1999 and hence the suit of the plaintiffs filed in the year 2001 was rightly decreed. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find 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