IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.209 of 2006 ----- 1. Ram Narain Sah, son of Sukdeo Sah. 2. Jagarnath Sah 3. Bachawa Sah 4. Ram Ayodhya Sah All sons of Ram Narain Sah. 5. Ram Swarup Sah, son of Sukdeo Sah. 6. Baiju Sah. 7. Ram Manoj Sah. 8. Dular Sah. All sons of Ram Swarup Sah. 9. Ram Nath Sah 10.Ram Ishwar Sah 11.Nand Lal Sah All sons of Raja Ram Sah, residents of Village-Sheohar, P.O & P.S.- Sheohar, Ward No.2, Notified Area Committee, Sheohar, Sub Division-Sheohar, District-Sitamarhi, Now Sheohar. --Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Most.Keshari Devi W/o Basu Sah, deceased. 2. Shiv Narain Sah, son of Basu Sah, deceased. Both residents of village-Sheohar, Ward No.2, Notified Area Committee, P.O. & P.S. Sheohar, Sub Division-Sheohar, District- Sitamarhi now Sheohar. – Plaintiffs- Respondents-Respondents Ist party. 3. Ram Chander Sah, S/O Dasrath Sah. Resident of village-Sheohar, Ward No.2, Notified Area Committee, P.O. & P.S.-Sheohar, Sub-Division Sheohar, District-Sitamarhi Now Sheohar.—Defendant no.12- Respondent- Respondent 2nd party. ----------- For the appellants : M/s Chitragupta Prasad & Nesar Ahmad, Advocates For the respondents: None -------- 05. 10.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.72 of 1990 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents Ist Party for - 2 - declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and for declaration that order dated 25.03.1982 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sheohar in Case No.352/1982 was illegal, unjust, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and also for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Sheohar vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.1993. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants-appellants-appellants filed Title Appeal No.41 of 1993 (09/06) which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-First Track Court- I, Sitamarhi, vide his judgment and decree dated 28.07.2006. The aforesaid judgments and decree of both the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the averments as well as the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have fully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties, whereafter they have come to a definite finding that Ext-D which is certified copy of the khatian shows that a house was standing in old plot no.1205 having an area of about 10 decimals in the name of Kanhai Raut and hence the owner of the estate, namely Ratneswari Nandan Singh, had no authority to issue a Bandobasti Patta of a portion of the said plot in the name of Nathuni Sah, the ancestor of the defendants. It was also found by the learned courts below that Bandobasti Patta and receipt (Ext.-B and A/2) were forged and - 3 - fabricated documents and no reliance can be placed on them. It was further concurrently found that there was no evidence from the side of the defendants that after getting Patta or Bandobasti from the ex- intermediary, the heirs of Nathuni Sah ever came in possession of the land in dispute, or the name of Nathuni Sah or his heir was recorded in the C.S.Khatian, whereas it was found that the name of Khena Sah had been recorded in the revisional survey khatian. 6. Furthermore, after going through the evidence of the parties, the learned courts below came to concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land on the basis of their title over the same. With respect to the consolidation proceeding, the learned courts below came to definite finding that the defendants had failed to prove the fact that after filing the case on 05.03.1982, they came to know that Khena Sah had died and if that fact is true, they ought to have filed a substitution petition before the Consolidation Officer, Sheohar to substitute the names of legal heirs of Khena Sah who was party to that case, but no substitution petition was filed before the Consolidation Officer, Sheohar, nor before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitamarhi. Hence, in view of the provisions of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, as amended in 1975, the order passed by the consolidation authorities against a dead person was totally illegal and after passing the said order, two rent receipts were also issued on its basis in favour of the defendants which was also found to be similarly null and void. It was also found that the defendants had failed to point out or substantiate that the plaintiffs - 4 - had any cause of action for the suit and hence it was found that the plaintiffs had valid cause of action for filing the suit and the suit was maintainable. 7. 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)