IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.165 of 2006 1. Amrendra Narayan Singh. 2. Rabindra Narayan Singh 3. Raghvendra Narayan Singh @ Raghvendra Singh, sons of late Ram Nagina Singh. 4. Heeramani Kunwar wife of late Ram Nagina Singh, all residents of village- Bazardihwa, P.S. Bhagwanpur, P.S. Umapur, District- Kaimur ( Bhabhua) 5. Smt. Pushpa Singh wife of Shyam Bahadur Singh, at present residing at Jaunpur, P.O. + P.S. + District Jaunpur ( U.P.) 6. Smt. Rita Singh, wife of Venketesh Rao, at present at A/66, Yojana Vihar, near Vivek Bihar, Yamuna Paar, New Delhi. … Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants. Versus 1. Surendra Prasad Singh 2. Rajendra Pd. Singh 3. Nunnu Singh 4. Murari Singh 5. Prakash Singh 6. Pratap Singh, sons of late Chaturbhuj Singh @ Gopaljee Singh. 7. Rakesh 8. Mukesh 9. Davesh 10. Yogesh, minor sons of Murari Singh through father and natural guardian Murari Singh. 11. Rajesh 12. Brajesh, minor Rajendra Pd. Singh through father and sons natural guardian Rajendra Prasad Singh. 13. Vilash Minor son of Nannu Singh through father and natural guardian of Nunnu Singh 14. Madhusudan , minor son of Prakash Singh through father and natural guardian Prakash Singh, all residents of village- Bhagawanpur, P.O.+P.S. Bhagawanpur, District- Kaimur ( Bhabhua) .. Defendants- Respondents- Respondents. --------------- For the Appellats : M/S B.M. Singh & Ganesh Ch. Thakur, Advocates. 6/ 03-12-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 23 of 2 1995 which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the suit land and also for declaration that revisional survey khatiyan entry with respect thereof is incorrect so far it relates to the defendants. 4. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-4, Bhabua by judgment and decree dated 21.12.2002. The plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and decree in Title Appeal No. 7 of 2003 (61/04) but the said appeal was also dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.2, Bhabua. The plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 5. The learned courts below have very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties where-after they came to the specific conclusion that from the evidence of the plaintiffs themselves it is quite apparent that they have got neither any Malki receipts nor there are any material to show that the suit land was given to the plaintiffs in partition. It was also found that neither the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the survey khatian nor in their ceiling case the plaintiffs have shown the suit land as their own land nor it was included in the partition suit between the members of the family of the plaintiffs. The learned courts below after fully considering the materials on record came to further conclusion that the statement of the plaintiffs that revisional survey khatian was incorrect and the plaintiffs had no information about the same before 1995, is absolutely unreliable as the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim. 3 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments 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 at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. B.Tiwary/ ( S. N. Hussain, J )