IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.216 of 2009 Md. Mukhtar @ Md. Mukhtar Alam & Ors Versus Md. Ansarul Haque For the appellants: M/S Vishwanath Pd. Sinha,Sr.Adv., Rajesh Kumar & Sanjay Kumar Singh For the respondent: M/S Sharda Nand Mishra, Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, Deepak Kumar & Harish Chandra Patel ---------------------------------- 8 22-9-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of affirmance. The plaintiffs have filed the title suit for declaration of their title over the suit lands described in the Schedules of the plaint and further for declaration that the survey entries made in the name of defendant 1st set with regard to the suit lands are wrong and illegal. Bereft of all details, it is clear that the plaintiffs have filed the suit only for declaration of title over the suit lands and no consequential relief relating to possession has been prayed. The further relief has been for declaration of survey entries as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted their own title and possession 2 over the suit lands on the basis of facts mentioned in the written statement. The trial court, considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the parties, has held that the plaintiffs have failed to seek the consequential relief of either confirmation of possession or recovery of possession and as such the suit is barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The said finding has been recorded by the trial court after coming to the finding that the defendants are in possession over the suit lands. The trial court has also recorded the finding that there is vagueness in the description of the suit lands as mentioned in Schedules I and II of the plaint and the plaintiffs have failed to establish the identity and physical existence of the suit lands. In appeal, the appellate court reappraised the evidence in view of rival contentions and has concluded that the plaintiffs, though have asserted acquisition of title on the basis of adverse possession with regard to the part of the suit lands, but have failed to seek consequential relief of confirmation of possession and injunction and as such the bar of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is attracted. Further, the appellate court has also concurred with the 3 findings of the trial court that the defendants are in possession of the suit lands. On the basis of these findings the appeal has been dismissed. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that both the courts below have not properly considered the pleadings and material evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs and has wrongly dismissed the suit. It has been further submitted that the finding with regard to non-joinder and misjoinder of parties is not tenable in view of the evidence on record. The perusal of the judgments of both the courts below shows that the findings have been recorded by the courts below after meticulously analyzing the evidence of the parties and the plaintiffs have been non-suited not only on the ground of non-joinder of parties but also on the basis of findings on title and possession which have been recorded in favour of the defendants.Moreover, in view of their case of being in adverse possession over the part of the suit land, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to seek further relief of confirmation of possession in that regard. During the course of submission nothing could be shown to establish that the findings of fact are perverse. As such, 4 there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)