IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.167 of 2008 ----------- Bhagwat Prasad @ Sheo Nandan Prasad, son of late Bulkan Prasad, Resident of village Karjara, P.S. Silao, at present resident of village Eksara, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda. …..Plaintiff-appellant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Asha Devi, wife of late Surju Mahto, resident of village Eksara, P.O. Eksara, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda. 2. Laxami Devi, wife of Sidheshwar Prasad, resident of village Karai Parsurai Bhawan, Chandmari Road, Patna near Electra High School. 3. Sheo Kumari Devi, wife of kumar Prasad, resident of vildlage Marhara, P.O. Gaganpura Via Noorsarai, District Nalanda. 4. Daimanti Devi, wife of Sahdeo Prasad, resident of vildlage Dhibrapar, P.O. Silao, District Nalanda. 5. Parmila Devi, wife of Sheo Nandan Prasad, resident of village Dariyapur, at present village Eksara, P.O. Eksara, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda. 6. Urmila Devi, wife of Binod Prasad alias Bimli Mistri, resident of village Milkipar, at present at Sasaram Bijli Mousmi, P.O. Sasaram, District Sasaram. 7. Bihari Mahto, son of Sarju Mahto, resident of village Eksara, P.O. Eksara, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda. ….Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ------- 05/ 13.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants against the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 159 of 1990, which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration that the area `a’, `b’, `c’ & `d’ given in the sketch map was part of plot no. 2046 and for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession as well as for recovery of possession if the defendants are found to have encroached upon the said land. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Biharsharif on contest vide his judgment and decree dated 21.07.1999. 2 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal no. 47 of 1999, which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Nalanda vide his judgment and decree dated 15.03.2008.The said impugned judgments and decree of both the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments as well as the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree, it is quite apparent that it was held by both the learned courts below that the suit land was not within plot no. 2046 and even if any portion thereof is covered by plot no. 2046, it is coming into peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the defendants since very long and that they have never encroached upon the said land. These findings are concurrent findings of facts, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in an appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Furthermore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of both 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)