IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.260 of 2008 1(a) Musafir Yadav 1 Thakur Yadav @ Thakur Prasad Yadav 2. Kameshwar Yadav 3. Janardan Yadav s/o Late Krit Narayan Yadav 4. Shankar Kumar Yadav 5. Raj Kumar Yadav s/o Late Ram Nandan Yadav All resident of Officers’Colony, Mirchaibari, Katihar Dist. Katihar Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants Versus 1. Krishna Deo Yadav 2. Jit Ram Yadav 3. Suresh Yadav 4. Naresh Yadav 5. Urmila Devi All sons of daughter of late Ganeshi Yadav resident of village Madhura PS Korha Dist. Katihar 6. Prakash Jha s/o late Banwari Jha resident of 7. Baudeo Yadav s/o late Darogi Yadav 8. Ram Kishun Uraon s/o late Lelhu Uraon Defendants 2nd party-Respondents-Respondents 9. Mahabir Mandal 10.Indra Bhushan Mandal 11. Kumar Mandal 12. Devan Mandal 13. Geda Mandal 14. Bhola Mandal All sons of late Mahabir Mandal resident of village Madhura tola Budhuchak PS and Dist. Katihar 15. Shakuntala Deavi w/o Sri Dashrath Yadav resident of village Ghorghat PS Purnea Dist. Purnea 16. Smt Mahamuni Devi w/o Sri Dashrath Yadav resident of village Bellouri PS Purnea Dist. Purnea 17. Smt Radha Devi w/o Sri Bhola Pd. Yadav resident of Mohalla Madhubani PS Khajanchi Hat Dist. Katihar 18. Smt Hansa Devi w/o Sri Dharo Yadav resident of village Tej Narayanpur PS Manihari Dist. Katihar Plaintiffs- Appellants-Respondents 19 Kiran Devi D/o late Ram Nandan Yadav Resident of Officers’Colony, Mirchaibari, Katihar Dist. Katihar Plaintiff- Appellant-Respondent ----------------------- For the appellants: Mr T.N. Matin, Senior Advocate Mr V.S. Modi, Advocate For the respondent nos: Mr Gaya Nand Roy, Advocate 1 to 7 and 9 to 14 - 2 - ----------------- 06 06.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 14. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.630 of 1988 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants for declaration of their title and confirmation of their possesison as well as for other ancillary reliefs with respect to the suit property. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional Munsif I, Katihar vide his judgment and decree dated 12.05.1995. 4. The judgment of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs-appellants in Title Appeal no.4 of 1995 which was also dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge I, Katihar vide his judgment and decree dated 06.06.2008. The said judgments and decree passed by the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently opposes the said impugned judgments and decree on various grounds but the facts remain that the basis of the plaintiffs’ claim was the sale deed (exhibit 1) and survey khatiyan (exhibit 4). With regard to the sale deed (exhibit 1), both the learned courts below concurrently found that authenticity of the said sale deed which was said to have been executed by Ram Kishun Tiwari in favour of Krit Narayan Yadav itself was under suspicion by the admission of the plaintiffs’ witness no.5 Rajendra - 3 - Prasad who was scriber of the said sale deed and had stated in paragraph 3 of his deposition that he learnt from identifier Jagat Narayan Yadav that the sale deed was forged. There was no other material to support the said sale deed whereas on the other hand in an earlier proceeding in a criminal case the said sale deed was sent to handwriting expert with the signature and LTI of the vendor and after verification and due examination of signature and thumb impression expert reported that the thumb impression in the said sale deed (exhibit 1) was that of Ram Narayan Yadav (vendee) and not Ram Kishun Tiwari (alleged vendor). Furthermore, in this connection additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was recorded by the learned lower appellate court which supported the said report of the Expert (Exhibits V and V/1) showing that the sale deed (exhibit 1) allegedly executed by Ram Kishun Tiwari, was forged document as it was under the signature of some other person. These expert reports V and V/1 were although obtained in another proceeding but they fully supported the evidence on record with regard to exhibit l including PW 5 and the learned courts below found nothing to support the claim of the plaintiffs. 6. So far as the revisional survey khatiyan (exhibit 4) produced by the plaintiffs is concerned, both the learned courts below found that they were apparently forged and fabricated in view of original copy called for which was found to support the certified copy of the khatiyan produced by defendants as exhibit C. The said exhibit C was also supported by DW 9 who was head assistant of the record room. - 4 - Hence the learned courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiffs-appellants completely failed to show that the said Ram Kishun Tiwari son of Late Lalhu Tiwari had any title and possession over the suit land and thus the claim of the plaintiffs on the strength of the sale deed allegedly executed in their favour did not confer any right, title or possession upon them. It was also found that the said Ram Kishun Tiwari never paid any rent to the State of Bihar of the suit land rather Jamabandi was created in the name of Dargoi Mahto and others in the year 1961 which was subsequently mutated in favour of the defendants. These circumstances also completely disprove the claim of the plaintiffs. 7. In the said 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