IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.42 of 2002 BRIJNANDAN PRASAD, S/O LATE MUNSHI HARGOURI SAHAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHAARAMPUR TOLA, KHUTAUNA, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTRICT-JAMAUI ………………..PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-APPELLANT Versus 1. TRILOKI YADAV 2. MATESHWAR YADAV 3. KALALDEO YADAV @ SAKALDEO YADAV ALL SONS OF LATE HERO YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DUMARKOLA, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTRICT-JAMUI 4. KRIPA KUMAR SINGH 5. PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BOTH SONS OF LATE CHANDRA BHAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAHULIGARH, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTRICT-JAMUI …. ….. …….. DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Lal, Advocate ------------------- 11/ 24.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 19 of 1983 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of his title over the suit land and also for confirmation of his possession over the suit land and alternatively for recovery of possession. Another relief sought was for declaration that saledeed dated 18.1.78 executed by Kirpa Kumar Singh in favour of Triloki Yadav and others was fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff. The aforesaid suit was dismissed on contest with costs by the learned Munsif, Jamui vide his judgment and - 2 - decree dated 23.7.90. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed Title appeal no. 6 of 1990 which was also dismissed on contest with costs by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamui vide his judgment and decree dated 29.9.2001. The said judgments and decree are under challenge in the instant second appeal. After hearing the argument and perusing the materials on record including the judgments and decree of learned courts below it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have considered the entire matter in detail and has found that the alleged Hukumnama of landlord relied upon by the plaintiff were not reliable as the signature of the landlord on the said Hukumnamas Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1A were different. Whereas the zamindari receipt Exhibit-2 of the year 1954 was also not reliable as the plaintiff deposing as P.W. 8 himself stated in his deposition that it was in the name of Chandra Bhal Singh in between 1950-1978 whereas the Exhibit-3 the Government rent receipt was not with respect to the suit land. In the circumstances, the learned courts below specifically found that the said Hukumnama and rent receipt were not genuine and on its basis the plaintiff’s title cannot be declared. It was also found by the learned courts below that the Hukumnama was alleged to be of 1950 but still in the Return filed by the ex-intermediary at the time of vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms - 3 - Act, the name of the plaintiff had not been mentioned and hence the plaintiff miserably failed to prove his title or possession over the suit land. Thus this Court finds that the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the claim of the defendant Ist Party was based on sale deeds which were genuine, legal and acted upon and fully proved the title for possession of the defendants according to which the Revenue authorities also rejected the prayer of the plaintiff. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below after considering the materials on record has rightly decided the issues in dispute and has come to specific findings with respect thereto. Furthermore, no substantial question is involved in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. S.Sb/- (S.N. Hussain, J.)