IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.14 of 1997 Bankim Chandra Das s/o Late Gopa Krishna Das resident of Bhatta P.S. Khazanchi Hat Dist. Purnea At present resident of Debigarh 2, Madhyam Gram Dist. 24 Pargana (North) Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Purnea Dist. Purnea 2. Sri Digambar Jha s/o Sita Ram Jha resident of Bhatta P.S. Khazanchi Hat Dist. Purnea Defendants-Respondents- Respondents ------------- For the Appellant: Mr S. K.Das, Advocate ------------- 06/ 03.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.84 of 1989 which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land as an occupancy raiyat and also for declaration that orders dated 19.03.1979, 25.07.1978 and 08.06.1988 passed in objection cases by the Municipal authorities recording the suit land in the name of defendant first party was wrong and baseless and the municipal survey entry in the name of defendant first party in respect of the suit land was wrong and baseless and also for confirmation of possession and alternatively recovery of possession along with injunction as well as other ancillary reliefs. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on contest by the Munsif Sadar, Purnia vide his judgment and decree dated 10.05.1994. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal no.45 of 1994 which was - 2 - also dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge I, Purnia, vide his judgment and decree dated 11.10.1996.Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant raises several objections with respect to impugned judgments and decree of the courts below with respect to Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as non-consideration by the lower appellate court the point considered by the trial court but from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of both the courts below, it is quite apparent that both the courts below have concurrently found that neither plot number of the disputed land nor even boundary thereof had been given by the plaintiff in the plaint and even portion of the holding which is said to be subject matter of the suit has not been specified to show that who had encroached and from which portion as per allegation of the plaintiff. Thus, the courts below were quite justified in arriving at concurrent findings that it was not possible to identify the specification of suit land in absence of specific identification of the suit land no relief can legally be granted by any court of law to the plaintiff. 6. So far other points decided by the trial court are concerned, the court of appeal below also considered the aforesaid points and decided that in view of the above finding there was no occasion for it to go into the other points. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the - 3 - 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