IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.156 of 2006 ----- 1. Jagdish Tanti 2. Parmeshwar Tanti Both are sons of Late Bihari Tanti, Resident of Village Surajpura Kazi Tola, P.O. and P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai. Defendants 1st Party-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1. Triveni Prasad son of Late Rohan Das @ Rohan Tanti, resident of Village Surajpura Kari Tola, P.O. and P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai. Plaintiff-Respondent 1st Set-Respondent 1st Set. 2. Laxmi Narayan Prasad. 3. Ram Das Prasad. Both are sons of Late Rohan Das @ Rohan Tanti, Resident of Village Surajpura Kaji Tola, P.O. & P.S.Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai. Defendants 2nd Party-Respondents 2nd Set-Respondents 2nd Set. 4. Bindeshwari Tanti s/o Late Gopali Tanti, Resident of Village Surajpura Kaji Tola, P.O. and P.S. Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. Defendant Ist Party-Appellant-Respondent 3rd Set. ----------- For the appellants : M/s Jitendra Prasad Singh & Manoj Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ---- 07. 19.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by defendants Ist Party-appellants-appellants challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.07 of 1993 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent 1st set for declaration of his title and also for a decree for recovery of possession against defendants 1st party (appellants) and for other ancillary reliefs. - 2 - The said suit was decreed on contest without cost by learned Munsif, Lakhisarai vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, defendant 1st party filed Title Appeal No.03 of 2004 which was dismissed on contest without cost by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-.1, Lakhisarai, vide his judgment and decree dated 05.04.2006. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that claim of the defendants-appellants were based on Ext.-B and Ext.-C, out of which Ext.-B was the Hukumnama executed by the previous raiyat, whereas Ext.-C was an unregistered deed of sale of 1924. So far Ext.B was concerned, it was claimed to be a Hukumnama executed by raiyat but a raiyat has no right to execute a Hukumnama and if the raiyat wanted to transfer his right, he can do so by way of a deed of transfer, whereas a Hukumnama is always executed by ex- intermediary of the land. Learned courts below very carefully considered the said Ext.-B and Ext.-C and came to the conclusion that the said documents cannot be legally relied upon as they were not even proved in accordance with law because D.W.5 was neither a party to the suit nor his Karpardaz. Learned courts below on the basis of evidence of the - 3 - parties rightly came to the conclusion that three registered sale deeds, Ext.-3, Ext.-3/a, Ext.-3/b, produced on behalf of the plaintiff was valid and operative and conferred right, title and interest upon the plaintiff. Learned courts below further found that plaintiff-respondent had right, title and interest over the lands purchased by him by the aforesaid three registered sale deeds but the said lands were subsequently encroached by the defendants which was also fully proved by the report of the Pleader Commissioner appointed by the court to which no objection was ever raised by the defendants. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the aforesaid 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.)