IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.198 of 1996 1. MOST.SUDAMIA DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE BHUKALU MAHTO -----(PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IST PARTY) 2. GANESH MAHTO 3. MAHESH MAHTO, BOTH SONS OF LATE BASUDEO MAHTO ---(PLAINTIFFS, APPELLANTS, 2ND PARTY) 4. ASHA DEVI WIFE OF SRI SIA SARAN SINGH (IMPLEADED IN APPEAL AS APPELLANT 3RD PARTY) ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA- DUJARA CHAK, P.S. BUDDHA COLONY, DISTRICT PATNA – APPELLANTS. Versus 1. PARYAG MAHTO SON OF LATE RAM KHELAWAN MAHTO (DEFENDANT RESPONDENT IST PARTY) (Expunged) 1(a) PARVATI DEVI 1(b) Lallu Mahto – D 1(c) Kallu Mahto. 2. RAM LAGAN SAHANI SON OF RAMESHWAR SAHANI 3. NAND LAL SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- DUJRACHAK, P.S. BUDDHA COLONY, DISTRICT-PATNA – DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS 2ND PARTY 4. GANGA MAHTO 5. KRISHNA MAHTO 6. SURESH MAHTO, ALL SONS OF RAM NAGINA MAHTO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-DUJRACHAK, P.S.-BUDDHA COLONY, DISTRICT-PATNA –(APPELLANTS)-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellants : M/S Uma Shankar Pd. Singh & Lal Babu Keshari, Advocates. For Respondents: Dhananjay Mishra, Advocate. ------ 22/ 25-04-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 02.07.1996 passed in Title Appeal No. 58 of 1990 by learned 6th Additional District Judge, Patna, whereby while dismissing the aforesaid title appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants, he has 2 affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1990 passed in Title Suit No. 240 of 1986 by learned Subordinate Judge No.1, Patna. The claims of the appellants herein with respect to the suit property have been negatived by both the learned courts below by the impugned judgments of affirmation. 3. The plaintiffs- appellants herein instituted aforesaid Title Suit No. 240 of 1986 on 08.07.1986 seeking a declaration of their right, title and interest over a piece of land, bearing plot no. 407, appertaining to khata no. 120, area- 3 decimals, situate at Mauza Dujrachak, corresponding to Patna Municipal Corporation Holding No. 373, Circle no. 246, Ward no. 33, in the town of Patna, fully detailed in Schedule-1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs also prayed for confirmation of their possession and in the alternative prayer was made for a decree for recovery of possession over the suit land, if the plaintiffs are not found in possession over the same. The claim of the plaintiffs with respect to suit land was based primarily on the ground that in the cadestral survey khatian, the suit land has been recorded in the name of one Babu Ram Mahto. Original plaintiff no.1 Bhukhal Mahto @ Bhukhalu Mahto claimed to be the only son of aforesaid Babu Ram Mahto and on that ground it was contended that after death of Babu Ram Mahto, he has inherited the suit property and, 3 therefore, he is entitled for a declaration of his right, title and possession over the suit land. Plaintiffs 2nd set claimed to be transferee from plaintiff no.1. 4. Two separate sets of written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants. One set of written statement was filed on behalf of one Prayag Mahto (defendant no.1) and other set of written statement was filed on behalf of one Ram Lagan Sahni and Nand Lall, defendant no. 2 and 3, respectively. Defendant no.1, Prayag Mahto, who was originally respondent no.1 in the present second appeal and now after his death, he has been substituted by his legal representatives, claimed that one Ram Lali Mahto had two sons, namely, Khaderan Mahto and Babu Ram Mahto. According to him, Babu Ram Mahto died issueless and, therefore, his property devolved upon his brother, Khaderan Mahto by the principles of survivorship. Defendant no.1, Prayag Mahto claimed to be the grand son of aforesaid Khaderan Mahto. Therefore, according to him, the suit property devolved upon him on the principle of survivorship. Though defendant no. 2 and 3 filed their separate written statement, but they have not claimed any right and title over the suit property. They have supported the claim of defendant no.1, Prayag Mahto and disputed the claim of the plaintiffs with respect to suit property. 4 5. In the title suit as many as seven issues were framed. Plaintiffs examined 17 witnesses in support of their case, whereas defendants examined nine witnesses to prove their case. Some documentary evidences were also produced by the parties. 6. On consideration of pleadings as also oral and documentary evidence of the parties, learned trial court came to a finding that plaintiff no.1, Bhukhal Mahto @ Bhukhalu Mahto has failed to establish that he was the son of aforesaid Babu Ram Mahto. The learned trial court also came to a finding that defendant no.1, Prayag Mahto was in possession over the suit property in the capacity of owner, who inherited the same from his ancestor. The claim of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1- Prayag Mahto was tenant has been disbelieved by learned trial court. After recording all the aforesaid findings of facts, suit of the plaintiffs- appellants herein was dismissed on contest, but without costs. 7. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, preferred Title Appeal No. 58 of 1990, which has been finally dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 2nd July, 1996, against which the present second appeal has been preferred. Learned lower appellate court, after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, came to 5 a finding that defendant no.1, Prayag Mahto, was in possession of the suit property. He has been held to be legal heir and representative of Babu Ram Mahto, who was admittedly recorded as owner of the suit property in the cadestral survey records. The claim of plaintiff no.1, Bhukhal Mahto, of being son of Babu Ram Mahto, was negatived even by the learned lower appellate court and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed on contests with costs. 8. Though matter has been heard at length, but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has failed to point out involvement of any substantial question of law in the present second appeal, warranting admission of the present second appeal and interference by this Court. Points urged on behalf of the appellants were primarily regarding questions of facts, which have been conclusively decided by the courts below against the appellants. Furthermore, the dispute is regarding only 3 decimals of land and suit was instituted as far back as in the year 1986. Almost 25 years have passed since then. A lis must come to an end at a particular point of time. 9. For the reasons recorded above, and particularly in absence of involvement of any substantial questions of law in the present appeal, this Court has no option, but to dismiss the present second appeal. 6 Accordingly, the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)