IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.384 of 2008 Ram Balak Singh, S/O-Late Makhan Singh, resident of village-Kamargama, P.O.+ P.S.-Bathnaha, District-Sitamarhi …Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Sitamarhi 2. Circle Officer, Bathnaha, District-Sitamarhi …… Defendants/Appellants/respondents. ----------- 02 20.10.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2008 passed in Title Appeal No. 49 of 2006 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Sitamarhi reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2006 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar, Munsif Sadar in Title Suit No. 103 of 2004. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the land mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint on the basis of a Patta (Hukum Nama) granted by the ex- landlord in his favour. The plaintiff has also raised his claim of title on the basis of adverse possession. The defendants did not file written statement in the suit. The lower court after considering the evidence led by the plaintiff has recorded the finding that the plaintiff has got title over the suit land on the basis of Hukum Nama and decreed the suit. However, the defendants preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. In view of the rival submissions of the parties, the appellate court re-appraised the evidence of plaintiff and 2 has concluded that those are not reliable documents for the purpose of upholding the title of the plaintiff as claimed by him and, accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the findings of the lower court were set aside. The plaintiff/appellants in this appeal has assailed the judgment of the appellate court on various grounds and at the outset, it has been asserted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment of the appellate court cannot be sustained as no point for determination has been formulated as provided by Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has further urged that the appellate court below has mis-appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff and has wrongly decided not to rely upon the same. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the appellate court was within the jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence and come to its independent conclusion. It has also been submitted that the suit land is a purely homestead land and there is no pleading that it is connected with the agriculture and as such the Consolidation Authority under the provision of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 could not have jurisdiction to pass an order with regard to the same. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and going through the impugned judgment, it appears that the judgment by the appellate court is a well considered judgment and every material 3 evidence adduced by the plaintiff and relied upon by the lower court has been analyzed and its legal effect has been determined. During the course of submission, it could not be established as to how the appellant has suffered any prejudice due to non-formulation on the points for determination by appellate authority. The findings of fact, as recorded by the appellate court, have also not been shown to be perverse. As such, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. SHAHZAD ( V. Nath, J.)