IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A No. 39 of 2006 1. Smt. Deokalo Devi W/o Rajendra Rajak 2. Bishwanath Rajak, S/o Rajendra Rajak, both resident of village Sihari, P.O. Sihari, P.S. Haspura, District Aurangabad. ……Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1. Upendra Prasad S/o Surendra Prasad 2. Bhola Prasad S/o late Tarani Prasad 3. Naresah Lal S/o late Kedar Lal 4. Rabindra Lal S/o late Lallan Lal @ Ramesh Chandra Verma 5. Bhagwati Prasad S/o late Baldeo Sahai 6. Jagdish Singh S/o late Sukhachand Yadav 7. Mathura Singh S/o late Rohan Singh 1 to 7 resident of village Ganga Bigha, P.O. Sihari, P.S. Haspra, District Aurangabad. 8. Binod Missir son of late Ramkewal Missir 9. Bindeshwari Devi W/o late Judagri Gope 10. Devideyal Singh S/o late Etwar Singh 11. Parvesh Singh S/o late Lohandi Gope 12. Rameshwar Singh S/o Bhrat Singh 13. Shyam Nandan Giri son of late Sheopati Giri 14.Kishore Prasad son of late Shyamdeo Prasad all resident of village Sihari, P.O. Sihari, P.S. Haspura, District Aurangabad 15. Binda Singh 16. Hari Charan Singh both sons of Jagdish Singh 17. Gangadeyal Singh 18 Surajdeyal Singh 19. Suresh Singh sons of late Lohadi Singh 20. Ram Naresh Singh 21. Ajay Singh 22. Arvind Singh sons of Barat Singh all residents of Dhamni Tola, P.S. Haspura, District Aurangabad. …..Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ----------- 09/ 28.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned 2 courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.68 of 1995 (03/2002) which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration that the plaintiffs were raiyats of the suit land detailed in Schedule-I of the plaint and the defendants had acquired no right, title and interest through their alleged deeds of gift and the same were illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. The aforesaid title suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 24.05.2004. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.11 of 2004(29/2005)which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.V, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005. 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 the suit of the plaintiffs could have been decreed only if they had proved their right, title and interest in the suit premises. However, the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties came to the specific findings that the suit land was recorded in the name of Kail Dhobi as a recorded tenant, but he died issueless and the said land was abandoned and accordingly landlords resumed the said land in their Khas possession as per the provision of section 87 of the Bihar Tenancy Act and the defendants were successors in interest of the said landlords who were in Khas 3 possession of the suit land. It is also apparent that the plaintiffs had claimed that the widow of Kail Dhobi inherited the suit property after the death of her husband in the year 1941 and gifted the same to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs but neither any Zamindari receipts or any other material, including return were produced on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove the said fact nor any Jamabandi was created in their name after vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar, whereas suit land stood recorded in the name of the predecessor in interest of the defendants, who through out dealt with the property, which was also proved by several registered documents of transfer and mortgages, etc. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs having failed to prove their right, title and interest over the suit premises the learned courts below were quite justified in rejecting their claim and dismissing their suit and appeal. Hence, 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)