IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.80 of 1995 1. KEDAR UPADHYA, S/O LATE SUDAMA UPADHYA. 2. KANHAIYA UPADHYA, S/O OF KEDAR UPADHYA, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, P.S. & P.O. GUTHANI, DISTRICT-SIWAN ..........DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-APPELLANTS Versus 1. SURDASH GOND 2. TIRBENI GOND, SONS OF LATE KUMARA GOND, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, P.S. & P.O. GUTHANI, DISTRICT-SIWAN ..........PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS ----------- 12/ 25.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This Second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants-appellants against the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 137 of 1987 which was filed by the defendants-respondents-respondents for declaration of title and recovery of possession in their favour and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-3rd, Siwan by his judgment and decree dated 17.08.91. The said judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 53 of 1991 which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge 6th, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 29.11.1994. Both the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant Second appeal. - 2 - 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decrees, it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs had given a specific genealogical table and in absence of any specific denial by the defendants the said genealogy has been proved beyond any doubt. It has also been fully proved that Agwan had died issueless and hence his entire property devolved upon his brother Saral and his successors in interest, namely, the plaintiffs. To disprove the claim of the plaintiffs an unregistered Hukumnama dated 30th Baishkh, 1945 (Exhibit-A) was produced by the defendants but from the materials on record it was found that it was a homestead land and the settlement was taken for the purpose of the construction of the house. 6. In the said circumstances, no such settlement can be legally made as per the specific provisions of law and the learned courts blow rightly discarded the said Hukumnama (Exhibit-A), as it was also not found to be genuine and valid. The learned courts below on the basis of evidence further came to specific findings that the plaintiff had been able to prove their possession and subsequent dispossession by the defendants during the pendency of the suit. In such matters the law is well settled that subsequent event can also be looked into for just and proper decision of the case. Hence the decisions of the learned courts below are covered by findings of facts. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this - 3 - Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor it does 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. S.Sb/- (S.N. Hussain, J.)