IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.37 of 2008 ----------- 1. Rajadhari Ram 2. Devdhari Ram Both sons of late Ram Swarup Ram 3. Ram Dular Ram 4. Rama Shankar Ram Both sons of late Kesho Ram 5. Gulabchandra Ram @ Gulab Ram 6. Sitaram Ram @ Sita Ram Both sons of late Barsati Ram All resident of village Jalilpur, P.S. Rajpur, District Buxar ……Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Ram Bachani Devi, wife of late Ram Narayan Ram, resident of Village Jalilpur, P.S. Rajpur, District Buxar. …….Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. -------- For the appellants : M/s Sanjay Kumar and Makardhwaj Upadhaya, Advocates. For the respondent : M/s V. Nath, Ashok Kumar and Valliur Rahman, Advocates. -------- 06/ 05.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 40 of 1993, which was filed by plaintiffs-appellants only for a relief of permanent injunction against the sole defendant-respondent- respondent restraining her from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional Munsif-II, Buxar vide his judgment and decree dated 02.07.1997. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs-appellants filed Title Appeal No. 52 of 2 1997, which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Buxar, vide his judgment and decree 31.10.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the lower courts court, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below and submits that, admittedly, Rameshwar Nath Chaubey was the owner of the suit property against whom a ceiling case was initiated and the suit land was declared as surplus and was settled by the Circle Officer in favour of the plaintiffs and rent receipt was granted in their favour. He further claimed that subsequently the said settlement was cancelled by the Additional Collector and the settlement of the suit land was made in favour of the defendant, which was absolutely illegal as the said authority had no jurisdiction to cancel settlement of the plaintiffs and to re- settle it to the defendant. 6. From the arguments of the parties as well as the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that neither the original owner Rameshwar Nath Choubey nor the settler of the land, namely, the State of Bihar or its authorities have been impleaded in the said suit nor any relief for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or even recovery of possession has been sought in the suit. 7. Furthermore, from the claims of the parties as well as the evidence on record, fully detailed in the impugned 3 judgments, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below had come to a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land, rather it was the defendant, who had been in possession of the suit land. This finding has been arrived at by the learned courts below after elaborate consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties. 8. No illegality in the said finding had been shown by the plaintiffs-appellants and hence in these circumstances no order of injunction could be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant specially when no relief either for declaration of title or recovery of possession had been sought by the plaintiffs. 9. Both the learned courts below have also considered the cancellation of settlement in favour of the plaintiffs and after full appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties had come to the conclusion that the cancellation of settlement of the plaintiffs was quite legal and justified and so was the settlement in favour of the defendant, who was legally in possession of the suit land on the basis of the said settlement. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of both 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. MPS/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )