IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.195 of 2006 Mani Ram Versus Sheo Person Pandey & Ors For the appellant: M/S Narehdra Kumar & Vinod Kumar Seth For the respondents: M/S Mahesh Pd.No.2 & Rewati Kant Raman ---------------------------------- 8 17-10-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20th June, 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-4, Bhabua, in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2002/14 of 2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 3rd July, 2002 passed by Subordinate Judge-II, Kaimur, in Title Suit No. 13 of 1999. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment of affirmance, has filed the title suit for declaration of his title over the suit land and for a declaration that the recent survey Khatiyan with regard to the suit land is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff with the further prayer for grant of injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed his title over the suit land on the basis of settlement from the ex- landlord. The defendants by filing their written statement have asserted that the ancestors of the plaintiff by registered sale deeds of the years 1921, 1937 and 1957 had transferred the suit land to the defendants and since then the defendants have been coming in peaceful possession over the suit land as owner thereof. 2 After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record the lower court has come to the finding that no one has turned to support the case of the plaintiff by way of oral evidence except the plaintiff himself and further finding is that there is complete absence of material documentary evidence. It has been concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case of title and possession over the suit land. The lower court has further held that the plaintiff had failed to get his name mutated in Register-II after abolition of Zamindari, but the defendants/purchasers had their names mutated with regard to the suit land. indicating absence of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The lower court has further found that the plaintiff even after having knowledge of the said sale deeds had not taken steps against them within the period of limitation and as such no relief could be granted to the plaintiff and accordingly the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the appellate court reappraised the evidence of the parties in view of their rival submissions and has concurred with the findings of the lower court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently submitted that both the courts below have misconstrued the evidence on record and wrongly non-suited the plaintiff on the ground of limitation. It has been urged that the sale deeds, which the defendants claimed as basis of their title, had never been brought on record and as such there was no material before the courts below to pass the judgment against the 3 plaintiff. After the perusal of the impugned judgments and considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, it is clear that both the courts below have come to concurrent findings of fact holding that there is absence of title and possession with the plaintiff over the suit land. During the course of argument nothing could be pointed out to establish that those findings are perverse. The fact remains that the plaintiff has never challenged the sale deeds propounded by the defendants as basis of their title and as such the non-filing of those sale deeds in the suit cannot be taken benefit by the plaintiff. It is well-settled that it is the plaintiff who has to stand on his own legs and he cannot take benefit of the weakness of the defendants. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, much less no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)