IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.222 of 2005 RAMAN KUMAR PANDEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & Ano ----------- 5 26.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned courts below. This matter arises out of Title Suit no.14 of 1993 which was filed by the appellant for declaring his possession over the suit land and for restraining the defendant by permanent injunction from interfering with his possession and for other ancillary reliefs. The aforesaid Title suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif II, Darbhanga by judgment and decree dated 28.3.2000, against which the plaintiff filed Title Appeal no.11 of 2000 which was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court IV, Darbhanga, by judgment and decree dated 21.3.2005. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. Although there were several issues but the suit 2 and claim of the plaintiff has been rejected mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the suit was bad for absence of any notice to the State of Bihar (defendant no.1) under the provision of section 80 of the Code of civil Procedure and secondly that the plaintiff had failed to prove partition and possession over the suit land. So far notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, the learned courts below have specifically found that the plaintiff himself in his pleading and deposition as PW 13 had not mentioned as to how notice was sent to the State of Bihar either by post or by messenger or directly by his own hand . It was also found that neither any acknowledgment or postal receipt or any other material has been produced to show that any such notice was served upon defendant no.1 or its authorities. In such circumstances, the learned courts below were justified in arriving at the findings that the suit was bad due to absence of notice to the defendant- State of Bihar under the provision of section 80 of the Code of civil Procedure. So far question of partition and possession is concerned, the learned courts below after considering each 3 and every evidence on records adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that none of the exhibit could validly show that Jamabandi was with respect to the suit land and there was also no other material that the plaintiff got suit land in partition and hence deed of transfer in question was executed without any authority or right or title in the property. Accordingly the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s story of partition was not proved nor his possession was proved as claimed by him. It was also specifically found after consideration of the pleadings and evidence that the suit land belonged to defendant no.1- State of Bihar. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain,J)