IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.93 of 2009 Trithnand Singh, Son of Late Mahendra Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Posdaha, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria. -----------------------------------Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant. Versus Chandra Mani Singh, Son of Late Surendra Singh, R/o Village- Posdaha, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria. ---------------------------Defendant-Respondent/Respondent. ----------- 6. 28.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008 passed in Title Appeal No. 52/01/09/01 by Ist Additional District Judge, Araria affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2001 of the Court of Munsif, Araria in Title Suit No. 1060 of 1990. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from going and claiming over the suit land which has been fully described in the Schedule of the plaint. The relevant case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff has got title and possession over the suit land which had been allotted to him in partition among his co-sharers and in the 2 revisional survey operation also the same had been recorded in his name. However, the defendants, who had no concern with the suit land, had got his name wrongly and collusively entered in the consolidation records of rights, although at the initial stage of the Consolidation Proceeding, the name of the plaintiff was entered with regard to the suit land. On the basis of the wrong entry in the consolidation records, the defendant started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him which has compelled him to file the suit for permanent injunction. On the contrary, the defendant accepted that the plaintiff had the title over the suit land and the suit land was the ancestral land of the plaintiff but has claimed that the father of the plaintiff gave the suit land to the defendant being pleased with his services and since thereafter the defendant has claimed to be in possession over the suit land after constructing a house and residing therein. The defendant had also taken the plea of adverse possession over the suit land and has asserted that during the consolidation operation the authorities recorded the name of the defendant with regard to the suit land after finding his possession over the same. 3 The perusal of the judgment passed in the suit shows that the learned Munsif has considered the pleadings, submissions and the evidence of the parties and thereafter has recorded the finding that the defendant has been in possession over the suit land. The learned Munsif has further concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title or possession over the suit land. In appeal, the appellate court below has after taking into consideration the submissions of the plaintiff and the defendant and on appreciation of the evidence, also come to the finding that the defendant is in possession over the suit land and thereby affirmed the finding recorded by the learned Munsif. The appellate court below has also concluded that the orders had been passed by the consolidation authorities in favour of the defendant after contest by the plaintiff recording the finding of title and possession in favour of the defendant over the suit land but the plaintiff has not sought any relief against those orders passed by the consolidation authorities and has also not sought the relief for recovery of possession. The learned appellate court below has thus held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred Under Section 34 of the Specific 4 Relief Act as he has failed to seek the other reliefs to which he was entitled on the date of the filing of the suit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that both the courts below have failed to consider that the defendant has not disputed the title of the plaintiff and as such only by remaining in possession over the suit land, the defendant cannot acquire title over the same. Further the learned counsel has submitted that he has filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction which involves the consideration of title and possession and as such the plaintiff cannot be non-suited on the ground of his failure to seek relief with regard to the orders passed by the consolidation authorities as well as the relief for recovery of possession. After hearing the submissions on behalf of the appellants and perusing the judgments under appeal, I do not find any substance in the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. There has been concurrent finding regarding the possession of the defendant over the suit land. The plaintiff has squarely failed to seek the relief for recovery of possession as well as the relief against the orders passed by the consolidation 5 authorities against him with regard to the suit land. There is no illegality or error in the findings and conclusions of both the courts below. No substantial question of law arise in this appeal for consideration, which is accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)