IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.240 of 2006 1. Vishwanath Kumar minor son of Ganga Singh 2. Bhagia Devi wife of Suder Singh Both residents of village Mirzapur Dilia, P.S.Sasaram, District Rohtas. -- Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Basant @ Bisant Kumar Mishra son of Late Chandrashekhar Mishra, resident of village and P.O. Chenari, P.S.Chenari, District Rohtas. -- Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate Mr. Akhouri Vipin Bihari Shrivastava, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ----- 07. 18.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.78 of 1989 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by learned Munsif I, Sasaram, vide his judgment and decree dated 24.08.1991. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No.96 of 1991 which was also dismissed on contest without cost by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.V, Rohtas (Sasaram) vide his judgment and decree dated 21.08.2006. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under - 2 - challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, learned courts below came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs was on the basis of sale deeds of 1988 (Ext.4 and Ext.4/A), whereas the claim of the defendant is on the basis of the sale deed of 1977, Ext.A/2. Learned courts below also found that Ext.A and Ext.A/3 were the sale deeds by which the father of plaintiff no.1 and son of plaintiff no.2 purchased and subsequently sold the land of plot no.865 in the year 1986 in which the name of Chandra Shekhar Mishra finds place in the western and southern boundary. Learned courts below came to the conclusion that had the sale deed Ext.A/2 not been acted upon the name of Chandra Shekhar Mishra would not have figured in the boundary of the land described in sale deeds Ext.A and Ext.A/3 and it goes to show that the said Chandra Shekhar Mishra, (defendant) had his land in the boundary. Furthermore, summing up the evidence of the parties, learned courts below found that Ext.A/2 was a genuine document which cannot be denied and the plaintiffs were unable to prove their title. It was also found that P.W.1 has himself fortified the case of the defendant as he could not give any explanation for mentioning the name of the defendant in the western and southern boundary of Ext.A and Ext.A/3 which is a strong circumstance to disbelieve the version of the plaintiffs on the point of title. - 3 - 6. So far the question of possession is concerned, learned courts below after considering the evidence of the parties came to definite finding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land, rather it is the defendant who is in possession of the suit land. This is a concurrent finding of fact. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)