IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.44 of 2005 Sheo Pujan Singh, son of Late Bishwanath Singh, resident of Mohalla-Kuraich, Mahabir Asthan, Sasaram , P.O.& P.S.- Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Sasaram) ….Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. V e r s u s 1. Gopal Singh, son of Basdeo Singh 2. Shri Ram Singh 3. Sanjay Singh 4. Vijay Singh 2 to 4 sons of Shri Gopal Singh All are residents of Mohalla-Kuraich, Mahabir Asthan, Sasaram, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Sasaram). …. Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- 10/ 08.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 85 of 1990, which was filed by the respondents for declaration of their title over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest without cost by the learned Munsif-I, Rohtas (Sasaram) vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2000. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendant in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2000 (71/2000), which was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Rohtas (Sasaram) vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2004. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under 2 challenge in the instant second appeal. From the averments of the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the claim of defendant-appellant was based upon cadastral survey khatiyan of 1913 in remarks column of which the name of the defendant’s ancestor was shown, and also upon revisional survey khatiyan of 1970 which was prepared in the name of the defendant and also on the mutation order of the D.C.L.R. and rent receipts issued thereafter and also on the chakbandi notice issued by the consideration authorities. On the other hand, the claim of plaintiffs-respondents was that the cadastral survey khatiyan of 1913 was prepared in the name of their predecessors and only in remarks column the name of defendants’ ancestor was shown but the Zamindari receipts issued by the ex-landlord clearly showed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs were the raiyats and the ex- intermediaries submitted their return at the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar in the name of predecessor of the plaintiffs, namely Basudeo Koeri and continuous Khatiyan (Ext.7) was also prepared in his name and thereafter plaintiffs’ name was mutated and government rent receipts were also issued to them. In the light of Zamindari receipts and returns submitted by the ex-intermediaries, no reliance can legally be placed on the cadastral survey khatiyan. So far the entries of revisional survey khatiyan is concerned, there is no reliable 3 material to show the basis of such an entry and moreover there was an order under section 103 of the Bihar Tenancy Act in favour of the plaintiffs. In the said circumstances no reliance can validly be placed even on the entries in the revisional survey khatiyan. So far the order of D.C.L.R. in mutation case is concerned, it was merely dependent upon the revisional survey khatiyan and from the concurrent findings of the learned courts below it is quite apparent that the defendant was never in possession, rather it were the plaintiffs who were in possession of the suit land. Furthermore, the chakbandi notice relied upon by the defendant had no value at all either on the point of title or on the point of possession. The learned courts below have also found that there was no document filed on behalf of the appellants to demonstrate that C.S. Khata No.29 had total area 01 bigha 10 katha, as such nothing would be gathered that 06 katha was ever sold by the ancestor of the plaintiffs to Ramyadi Koery, the predecessor of the defendant by oral sale. The said claim of oral sale is specifically found to have not been supported by any valid material. Both the learned courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs had throughout been in possession of the suit land and they had right, title and interest therein. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find 4 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)