IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.414 of 2004 1(a) Meshudhan Khatoon (b) Abdul Rehman (c) Amijul Rehman (d) Bhuwal Khaoon (e) Most. Amina (f) Umraon Nisha (g) Mariyama Begum 2. Tejamul Mian 3. Nijamuddin Mian @ Md Nizamuddin Both sons of late Md Hussain resident of Village Pakari P.S. Dumariaghat Dist. East Champaran Defendants- Appellants- Appellants Versus 1. (ka) Bibi Hadisan w/o Late Ishaque Khan (kha) Md. Rashid (ga) Md Mazid (gha) Md Tuna (cha)Md Sahid (chha) Md Haquim All sons of late Ishaque Mian (ja) Noor Jahan w/o Md Nezam D/o late Ishaque Khan resident of village Verua P.S. and Dist. Vaishali 2. (ka) Sharfun Nesa w/o Late Abdul Rajak (kha) Md Abudullah (ga) Md Nanha Both sons of late Abdul Rajak 3. (ka) Md Mustafa (kha) Akhlak (ga) Bibi Ashma Khatoon (gha) Nanhe (cha) Rajia (chha) Boby (ja) Bibi Muni 4. Abdul Manan 5. Nurul Hoda s/o late Samsul Haque 6. Nagina Mian s/o late Sabdul Mian All resident of Village Pakari Ps Dumariaghat Dist. East Champran Plaintiffs – Respondents-Respondents ----------------------- For the appellants: Dr Amrendra Kumar, Advocate Mr Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the respondents: Mr Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate ------------------- 22/ 03.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents. - 2 - 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.74 of 1986 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their title over the suit land detailed in Schedules I and II of the plaint and for recovery of possession as well as mesne profit and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Ist Additional Munsif, Motihari vide his judgment and decree dated 26.05.2000. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal no.47 of 2000 which was dismissed on contest by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, East Champaran, vide his judgment and decree dated 29.09.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below but it is quite apparent that the impugned judgments of the learned courts below are covered by findings of facts, as both the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties exclusively came to the conclusion that admittedly the suit land originally belonged to the sons of Narak Mian and there is also no dispute with regard to partition of the suit plot. It was also found that both the suit plots were purchased by the plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 and plaintiff no.6 from the original owner and hence they got valid title over the same and were also in possession of the said land till their - 3 - dispossession. 6. So far the question of oral gift is concerned, the learned courts below also considered the matter in detail and found that not even a single witness had deposed that he was a witness to the oral gift or he had heard about the same from any named person at any given date. Hence the plea of oral gift having not been established, the learned courts below were justified in rejecting the same. 7. From the pleadings of the parties both the learned courts below also found that no specific case of hostile title with knowledge was made nor any assertion with regard to peaceful or uninterrupted possession had been established by the defendants as claimed by them. Hence it was also found that there is no evidence on record to show that when possession of the defendants or their predecessor as claimed by them became openly hostile against the plaintiffs and their vendors. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have successfully proved by their pleadings and evidence their case of possession on the basis of their deed of title and their subsequent dispossession in the year 1986 has also been fully proved by them. Furthermore, the suit having been filed immediately thereafter in the year 1986 itself, there was no question of any bar of limitation. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the judgments and decree of the learned courts below are covered by concurrent findings of facts and this Court, while hearing a second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can not legally interfere with the same. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does - 4 - 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)