IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.535 of 2009 Judagir Mahto & Anr. Versus Aklu Mahto & Ors. ---------------------------------- 5 3-8-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18th September, 2009, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 4th March, 2002 passed by Additional Munsif II, in Title Suit No. 83 of 1996. The plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 83 of 1998 for declaration of her title and further declaration that the consolidation records of rigthts have been wrongly prepared in the name of defendant no.1 with regard to the suit land. The plaintiffs also prayed for the relief of injunction against the defendants during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs have based their title over the suit land on the settlement from the ex-landlord in the name of their grandfather Dahu Mahto and to have come in possession over the suit land after the said settlement. The further case of the plaintiffs is that after settlement their grandfather had constructed a house over the settled land but later on after marriage he had shifted to another village and settled there. The plaintiffs have made out a case that they had given the charge to look after the house to his neighbour, Awadh Bihari, who utilized the land after the house over it had fallen down in due course. Later on, however, one Pragash Prasad started claiming title 2 over the suit land. Then the plaintiffs on enquiry came to know that the Chakbandi Khatiyan had been prepared in the name of the defendants and therefore the plaintiffs have been compelled to file the suit with the aforesaid relief. The defendants filed their written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs asserting, inter alia, that the suit land was earlier Gairmazarua Malik land and Vekhdhari Mahto was allowed to reside over the suit land by the ex-landlord. The ex-landlord never settled the land to Dahu Mahto, as claimed by the plaintiffs. The above said Vekhdhari Mahto returned the possession of the suit land to the ex-landlord and thereafter the father of Murat Mahto took settlement from the ex-landlord and since then they are continuously residing over the same. It has been the further case of the defendants that the consolidation records have been correctly prepared after due enquiry. The learned Additional Munsif heard the parties and considered the evidence in detail and came to the finding that initially Vekhdhari Mahto was in permissive possession of the suit land and later on the ex-landlord resumed the possession and settled the same to the ancestors of the defendants. It has been further held that the records of rights during the consolidation proceeding have been correctly prepared. On the basis of these findings the suit was dismissed. The appellate court, in appeal, by the plaintiffs formulated the specific point for decision and reconsidered the evidence of both the parties on record. After hearing the submissions on behalf of the parties and considering the evidence in detail, the appellate court had 3 come to the finding that even if there had been any tenancy or settlement to Dahu Mahto , it was not permanent and after its abandonment the suit land reverted back to the ex-landlord. The appellate court thus came to the finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case, as pleaded. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that both the courts below have erred in law in not considering the material evidence on record and the question that the entry during the consolidation proceeding will not create any title in favour of the defendants.The learned counsel has also submitted that the material evidence of the plaintiffs has been ignored by both the courts below while non-suiting them. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments of the courts below it appears that both the courts below have considered in detail the submissions and the evidence of the parties and have concurrently held on that basis that the plaintiffs have no title and possession over the suit land, as claimed.As nothing specific could be pointed out on behalf of the appellants in support of the submission regarding non-consideration of evidence by the courts below, there does not appear to be substance in the submission in this regard and as such the question of validity of consolidation records of rights and creation of title on that basis becomes irrelevant. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy (V.Nath) 4