IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.20 of 2007 ----------- 1. Dinanath Singh 2. Rajendra Singh 3. Ramapati Singh 4. Sri Ram Singh 5. Ashok Singh All sons of late Radha Kishun Rai 6. Suraj Rai, son of late Doodhu Rai Appellants no.1 to 6 are residents of village Muriyari, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan. 7. Tej Bahadur Singh, son of Asarfa Devi 8. Anil Singh 9. Sunil Singh Both sons of Tej Bahadur Singh Appellants no. 7 to 9 are residents of village Nema, P.S. Lar, District Deoria ( U.P. ). ….Defendants-Appellants-Appellants versus Ram Shankar Rai, son of late Dhoni Rai, resident of village Muriyari, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan. ……. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent -------- For the appellants : M/S Dronacharya and Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the respondent : None. -------- 06/ 16.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 78 of 1975 (24/1986), which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent- respondent for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the suit land. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Additional Munsif-V, Siwan vide his judgment and decree 2 dated 26.05.1987. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 32 of 1987, which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge- cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 07.11.2006. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for defendants-appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below on the ground that neither the plaintiff could disclose the date of settlement by the ex-land lord in favour of his vendor nor the learned court below could frame any issue and decide the relevant facts as to whether the defendants’ father was an heir of ex-raiyat Bhola Rai alias Bhola Das. 6. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that it was an admitted fact that Bhola Das was the raiyat of the suit land under the Malik ( ex- intermediary) and after some times the said Bhola Das died unmarried and issueless. 7. The matter in dispute arises from this point as the plaintiff claimed that after the death of raiyat Bhola Das, the landlord came in possession of the suit property as Malik and settled the same with Ram Lakhana Sahi ( P.W. 7), who subsequently sold it to the plaintiff by registered deed dated 21.03.1966 (Ext.1) for 3 consideration of Rs.2000.00. 8. On the other hand, the claim of the defendants was that after the death of Bhola Das, his uncles Devi Rai and Sheo Prasad Rai succeeded his property including the suit land, whereafter they and after them their heirs, namely, the defendants, remained in possession of the suit land and their names were mutated by the authorities concerned. 9. Apart from the oral evidence, the plaintiff had produced Ext. 4, a certified copy of the khatian, which showed the name of the ex-intermediary and also the name of Bhola Das as raiyat. He also produced Ext. 2, a certified copy of the rent receipt in respect of the land in question in the name of Ram Lakhan Sahi (P.W.7), the vendor of the plaintiff, which was of the year 1965-66. Ext. 3 produced by the plaintiff was a certified copy of the application filed by him for obtaining certified copy of the Jamabandi Register-II in the name of Ram Lakhan Sahi, but it was returned with a report that there was no provision to issue certified copy of the Jamabandi Register-II and the learned courts below from the perusal of the said document specifically came to the conclusion that the said report of the office of the Circle Officer at least proved that the land in question was registered in Register-II in the name of Ram Lakhan Sahi, the vendor of the plaintiff. 10. On the other hand, two sets of documents were filed on behalf of the defendants, out of which Exts. `A’ series were not connected with the suit land and hence they had to be ignored, 4 whereas Ext. B was mutation order in favour of the defendants, but any order passed in a mutation case by the authorities concerned cannot legally confer any right, title or interest in any one. Hence on that basis the defendants could neither disprove the plaintiff’s claim nor could prove their own right and title over the suit property nor any other document was filed by the defendants. 11. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the plaintiff had been able to show that Bholda Das had died and the Malik had settled the suit land with Ram Lakhan Sahi, who was duly recorded and receipts were issued in his name and who fully supported and proved the claim of the plaintiff by deposing as P.W.7. It is also not in dispute that the said Ram Lakhan Sahi had executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff dated 21.03.1966 (Ext.1). Thus, the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the vendor of the plaintiff being raiyat of the property had right and title over the suit land and was fully entitled to transfer the same to the plaintiff. 12. In the aforesaid facts and 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )