IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.311 of 2008 1. Kameshwar Yadav s/o Late Kashi Yadav 2. Kuldip Yadav s/o Kameshwar Yadav Both resident of Village Khanti P.S. + Circle Govindpur Dist. Nawadah Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Nawadah 2. Anchal Adhikari Govindpur, Dist. Nawadah Defendants-Respondents- Respondents ----------- For the Appellants: Mr Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate ---------- 04/ 13.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.83 of 2004 (71/2005) which was filed by plaintiffs-appellants for declaration of their title over the suit land and also for confirmation of possession and further to declare revisional survey entry with regard to the suit land to be wrong as well as for permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by Additional Munsif II, Nawadah vide his judgment and decree dated 31.05.2007. 4. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, plaintiffs-appellants filed Title Appeal no.30 of 2007(01/2008) which was also dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No. I, Nawadah, vide his judgment and decree dated 24.06.2008. Against the above mentioned judgments and decree of the courts below instant second appeal has been filed. - 2 - 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below on the ground that no written statement having been filed by the defendants, there was nothing against the claim of plaintiffs which was fully supported by their evidence. It was also asserted that the claim of plaintiffs on the basis of settlement by the Ex-intermediatory vide Hukumnama (exhibit 7) was wrongly discarded by the courts below. The third point raised by learned counsel for the appellants was that the plea of adverse possession raised by plaintiffs was rejected by the courts below only because there was no documentary evidence to support plaintiffs’ claim of adverse possession although PWs 1,2, 3 and 4 fully supported plaintiffs’ claim of adverse possession. 6. So far the first point raised by learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, since plaintiffs were claiming title over the suit land by settlement as well as by adverse possession, onus was squarely upon them to prove the said case and the absence of any written statement filed on behalf of the defendants would not legally shift onus from plaintiffs to prove their specific claim in which they miserably failed as no reliable evidence was brought on record to support the pleading. 7. So far the second point regarding settlement is concerned, admittedly Hukumnama (exhibit 7) is a Sada piece of paper although the requirement of law is that the settlement should have been by a registered document otherwise the settlement must be shown by subsequent Zamindari receipts, Jamabandi, rent receipts etc. but in the instant case neither settlement was by a registered document nor plaintiffs produced any - 3 - Zamindari receipt, Return etc in support of their claim of title on the basis of Hukumnama. In the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the courts below to rely merely on a Sada Hukumnama and to allow plaintiffs’ claim. 8. So far the third point of adverse possession is concerned, the courts below have very carefully gone into the said question and have come to the conclusion that plaintiffs’ claim of continuous possession since the alleged Hukumnama of the year 1330 Fasli (exhibit 7) was neither supported by any Zamindari receipt or Zamindari Return or Jamabandi or Register II entry or any Government rent receipt whereas the other documents on record including the revisional survey khatiyan (exhibit 1) clearly shows that plaintiffs were nowhere found in possession . Hence in view of the aforesaid documents against plaintiffs and absence of any document in favour of plaintiffs, there was no occasion to declare their possession over the suit land merely on the basis of statements of a few witnesses, out of whom two were plaintiffs themselves, who were found to be unreliable and not satisfactory. 9. 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 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