IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.187 of 2003 1. Sudama Devi W/o Late Sahdeo Ram 2. Kamleshwari Ram 3. Kirpal Ram 4. Mani Ram All sons of Late Sahdeo Ram 5. Upendra Ram 6. Nand Kishore Ram both sons of Late Bindeshwari Ram All resident of Village Nagarpara P.S. Bihpur Dist. Bhagalpur 7. Ful Kumari Devi D/ Sahdeo Ram and W/o Bishundeo Das 8. at village Maire Post Mahdipur P.S. Gogari Dist. Khagaria 9. Baldeo Ram 10. Fatuni Ram both sons of Late Bhochan Ram 11. Indradeo Ram son of Late Kare Ram 12. Kamod Ram son of Late Tilakdhari Ram All resident of Village Nagarpara P.S. Bihpur Dist. Bhagalpur Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants Versus 1. Rato Devi w/o Bhushan Ram resident of Village Paina P.S.Chausa Dist. Saharsa 2. Ninki Devi w/o Tillo Ram at Sighpur P.S. Kishanganj Dist. Madhepura 3. Anandi Ram 4. Sudho Ram both sons of Nirdhan Ram 5. Narayan Ram son of Sarbi Ram 6. Chulhai Ram son of Ajab Ram 7. Bikash Ram 8. Nand Kishore Ram both sons of Late Bhola Ram 9. Jagdish Ram 10. Pandab Ram both sons of Bhandhu Rabidas 11. Laxmi Devi W/o Bhandu Rabidas All resident of Village Nagarpara P.S. Bihpur Dist. Bhagalpur Defendants-Respondents-Respondents ----------------------- For the appellants: Mr Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the respondents: None ------------------- 07 29.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. - 2 - 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.43 of 1989 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants for partition of their alleged 3/ 4 share in the suit property detailed in schedule of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge II, Naugachia vide his judgment and decree dated 28.03.1998. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal no.34 of 1998 which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge II, Naugachia, vide his judgment and decree dated 05.02.2003. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of both the learned courts below, it transpires that both the learned courts below had fully considered the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the parties where after it had come to the concurrent findings of facts that there was a partition in the family in the year 1939 which was also apparent from the entries in the revisional survey khatiyan in which lands allotted in partition to different branches were separately mentioned. The learned courts below also found that although certified copy of the return filed by the Ex-landlord had been produced by the plaintiffs but the learned courts below did not rely upon it as it was not a public document and the plaintiffs had not made any effort to get it exhibited and furthermore the said return was never acted upon as neither any Jamabandi nor register II could be produced to show that suit plots were in joint possession of both the parties and furthermore the - 3 - claim of the plaintiffs was not supported by any other reliable evidence, either oral or documentary. 6. The learned courts below also found that exhibit B series and exhibit C series were deeds of sale executed by persons of different branches according to the said partition and it included exhibit C/1 which was a sale deed executed by plaintiff no.2 Baldeo Ravidas himself in favour of one Boudha Ram with respect to the property allotted to his share in the partition. The learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that there was no unity of title and possession between the parties with respect to the suit land. 7. In the said circumstance, 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. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid