IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14873 of 2010 1. TEJ PRATAP, SON OF LATE BACHCHU LOHAR 2. MURAHU LOHAR 3. SURAHU LOHAR, BOTH SONS OF BASJIT LOHAR 4. DINA NATH LOHAR, SON OF MOTI LOHAR 5. SURYA NATH LOHAR, SON OF LATE SIDAS LOHAR ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DAHRAK, P.S. RAM GARH, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABHUA). ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, RAM GARH, KAIMUR, BHABHUA 4. SHEO MURAT LOHAR 5. RAMA NAND LOHAR 6. RADHE SHYAM SHARMA 7. KISHUN SHARMA 8. MUNNA SHARMA, ALL SONS OF LATE BANARSI LOHAR 9. UMA SHANKAR LOHAR 10. RAMASHISH SHARMA 11. KANHAIYA SHARMA 12. MOHA SHARMA, ALL SONS OF LATE CHANDRAMA SHARMA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DAHRAK, P.S. RAM GARH, P.O. RAM GARH, DISTRICT KAIMUR, BHABHUA. 13.MUNIB LOHAR, SON OF LATE HIRA LOHAR 14.PRABHU NARAIN, SON OF LATE SITA RAM LOHAR 15.TILESHWARI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SITA RAM LOHAR ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DAHRAK, P.S. RAMGARH, P.O. RAM GARH, DISTRICT KAIMUR, BHABHUA. ----- RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :- Mr. Upendra Pd. No. 2, Advocate For the respondents :- Mr. Sunil Kr. Ravi, A.C to G.P. 15 For private respondents :- None ----------- 3 21.9.2010 The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.3.2009, passed by the Director, Consolidation. The case of the petitioners are that they are legal heirs and descendents of Singar Lohar whereas the case of the respondents is that the petitioners cannot claim any right by virtue of setting up a title through Singar Lohar 2 because of the fact that it has already been held in Title Suit No. 220 of 1962 that Tetar Lohar is not the son of Singar Lohar. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to a suit filed by some of the co- sharers which is Title Suit No. 152 of 1967 wherein the decision passed in Title Suit No. 220 of 1962 was challenged. It was held that the decision in Title Suit No. 220 of 1962 will not operate as res judicata and the judgment of Title Suit No. 220 of 1960 in Execution Case No. 91 of 1966 are not binding on the plaintiffs. Counsel for the petitioners submits that against the order passed in Title Appeal No. 2811 of 1973-74 (arising out of Title Suit No. 152 of 1967), the stand was that the Title Appeal aforesaid and the Second Appeal filed against the judgment under appeal had abated under Section 4(c) of the Consolidation Act. It was also submitted that since the Title Appeal had abated, the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 152 of 1967 would abate as also the judgment in Title Suit No. 220 of 1962. As mentioned earlier in Title Suit No. 220 of 3 1962, the Court had held that Tetar Lohar was not the son of Singar Lohar. It may be noted that this finding was not upset in the subsequent suit. Be that as it may, the question whether Tetar Lohar is the son of Singar Lohar would be question of fact which has to be proved by leading evidence. This Court in the facts of this case finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Joint Director. However, the petitioners may take appropriate legal steps in order to substantiate their claim. This writ application is dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)