IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.204 of 2005 MAHENDRA PRASAD Versus SHEO BALAK CHAUDHARY & ANR. ----------- 09/ 14.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by defendant 1st set-appellant- appellant against the judgment of affirmance. The instant matter arises out of Title Suit No. 01 of 1994 which was filed by plaintiff-respondent-respondent 1st set for declaration of his title and recovery of possession of the suit property, namely lands of plot no.34 from the defendant-appellant and for other ancillary reliefs. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Nalanda vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2004 which was challenged by defendant no.1 in Title Appeal No.04 of 2004 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Nalanda vide judgment and decree dated 13.04.2005. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. From the averments made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the material on record including the impugned judgments and decree, it is quite apparent that the defendant-appellant had not acquired the suit land of plot no.34 rather according to his case he had purchased plot no.36 and since plot no.34 was adjacent to it and was lying vacant, he amalgamated the said land in the year 1987 and started cultivating it along with his purchased land. On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent- respondent no.1 is that the suit land was the land settled with him by 2 ex-intermediary, who issued Zamindari receipts and after vesting of Zamindari, returns were submitted in his name and thereafter Jamabandi was created in his name and he was recorded in the government registers and has been paying rent, but in the year 1993 the defendants broke the ridge between plot nos.36 and 34 and encroached upon the suit land. Both the learned courts below have concurrently found that there was no document which proved any semblance of right, title and interest of the defendant over the suit property nor there is any material to show that he had been in possession of the suit land prior to 1993. The aforesaid findings of the learned courts below are based on evidence both oral and documentary, which were not validly disproved by the defendant. 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. harish/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)