IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.247 of 2009 1.Raja Ram, Son of Late Ghurbhari Chamar @ Ram. 2.Hari Shankar Ram, Son of Late Ghurbhari Chamar @ Ram. 3.Chamaliya Prasad, D/o Late Ghurbhari Chamar @ Ram. All are residents of Village- Bharigawan, P.S.- Kudra, P.O.-Odar, District- Rohtas.------------------------------------- --------------------Defendant/Respondent/Appellants. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram)---- --------------------------Defendant/Respondent/Respondent.. 2.Badri Singh, S/o Late Ganesh Singh. 3.Ramjee Singh, S/o Badri Singh. 4.Prabhat Kumar Singh, S/o Ramjee Singh. 5.Dam Dam Kumar Singh, S/o Ramjee Singh. Respondents 4 & 5 are minor Sons of Ramjee Singh represented through their father and next friend. 6. Ram Awadh Singh, S/o Badri Singh. Respondent 2 to 6 are R/o Village- Nathoopur ,P.S.- Kudra,P.O.- Fakharabad, District- Rohtas. 7.Smt. Malti Devi, W/o Paras Nath Singh, R/o Village- Jamurana, P.O.- Jamurana, P.s.- Ramgarh, District- Rohtas. ------------------------Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents. ----------- 12. 21.07.2011 Hared the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, F.T.C. I Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Title Appeal No. 2 26/89/62/06 reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1989 passed by Additional Munsif, Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 100/84/53/88. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land as mentioned in Schedule Ka of the plaint with the further prayer to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs and to grant other consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs have claimed their title over the land on the basis of a sale deed dated 16.06.1959 which they claim to have obtained from the ex Landlord. The plaintiff’s case was that the ex Landlords were in Khas possession of the suit land at the time of vesting of the Jamindari and as such they acquired Raiyati right over the same and were entitled to transfer the same in favour of the plaintiffs. After the purchase the plaintiffs got the land mutated in their names and they have been paying rent and getting rent receipts. The plaintiffs’ grievance is that during the recent survey preceding the survey records of rights with regard to the suit land have been prepared in the name of State of Bihar and in the consolidation proceeding also the records have been prepared in the name of State of Bihar. The plaintiffs’ further case is that on the basis of the wrong entries, the State of Bihar has wrongly 3 settled the suit land in favour of the defendant no.2 by issuing red card in his favour. On the basis of these facts the plaintiffs have prayed for the reliefs as aforementioned. The State of Bihar who was defendant No.1 and its settllee who was defendant no.2 in the suit have filed their separate written statements denying the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 has supported the entries in the records of rights and has denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The khas possession of the ex landlord over the suit land has also been denied. The defendant no.2 in his written statement has also made out specific case that in the cadastral survey the suit land was recorded as Gair Majarua Malik but the same was never in possession of the ex Landlord and no return had been filed by the ex Landlord with regard to the suit land and the survey Khatiyan as well as the consolidation Khatian have been correctly prepared in the name of the State of Bihar which has validly settlled the suit land in favour of the defendant no.2 by issuing Red Card and on that basis the defendant no.2 has acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit land. The Additional Munsif, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record came to the finding that after 4 the vesting there is no evidence that there was a deemed settlement of the land in favour of the ex Landlord followed by a rent fixation proceeding and as such the ex Landlord did not acquire any right or title over the suit land and the sale deed executed by the ex Landlord in favour of the plaintiff was invalid and did not confer title. The Learned Munsif has further come to the finding that the plaintiff himself has accepted that he had filed a petition during the on going consolidation proceeding but his petition had been rejected by the consolidation officer and in view of this statement the learned Munsif came to the finding that the claim of the plaintiff was barred Under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act. The Appellate Court however after hearing the parties and on reconsideration of the pleadings and evidence has reversed the findings of the trial Court and came to the specific conclusion that the suit land was in Khas possession of the ex Landlord at the time of vesting of Jamindari whereafter the ex landlord acquired the status of raiyat and the rent was also fixed by the State of Bihar which had accepted the rent by them and granted rent receipts which are Ext.4 and 4/A. On this basis the sale of suit land in favour of the plaintiff by the ex landlord has 5 been upheld. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants while assailing the judgment of the learned court of appeal below has submitted that the learned court has not considered the reasoning assigned by the trial court while dismissing the suit and has also not considered the materials which have been considered by the trial court. His further submission is that title of the vendor of the plaintiff could not be established in the trial court which is clear from the findings of the court and those findings are based upon evidence and correct reasonings. The learned counsel for the appellants has also raised the submission that the claim of the plaintiff as well as the suit was barred Under Section 15 and 37 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. After considering the impugned judgment and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants it appears that the appellate court has considered all the material evidence and in particular Ext.4 and 4/A for coming to the finding on the title of the vendor of the plaintiff. On behalf of the appellant, no such material evidence could be pointed out which had been omitted from consideration by the appellate court before recording its findings. Further the appellate court has 6 rightly drawn adverse inference against the defendant no.1 (State of Bihar) who failed to produce the Jamindari Return before the court in spite of the order dated 12.01.1989 on the petition of the plaintiff whose prayer for certified copy of the same had also been turned down by the defendant no.1. The appellate court below has also considered the evidence which establish the khas possession at the time of vesting of ex landlord over the suit land and fixation of rent by the State of Bihar in favour of the ex landlord. The appellate court below has also found the exclusive possession of the vendor of plaintiff and after the sale, of the plaintiff over the suit land after scrutiny of the evidence on the record. Relying on the full bench decision of this Court in 2000(2) PLJR 338, the appellate court below has correctly repelled the objection of the defendants under Sections 15 and 37 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. In view of these considerations, no substantial questions of law appears to arise in this second appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh (V. Nath, J.)