IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.225 of 1994 1. Mahanth Mahto son of Thag Mahto 2. Bharat Mahto son of Thag Mahto 3. Kashi Nath Mahto 4. Shwami Nath Mahto 5. Dhram Nath Mahto 6. Arjun Mahto @ Dudh Nath Mahto sons of Indar Mahto 7. Jiyachhi Devi @ Jiachi wife of Simakant Mahto 8. Bhagmani Devi wife of Rama Shankar Mahto 9. Most. Jotia wife of Late Indar Mahto, all resident of village Hakim Tola, P.O. & P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. ...........Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Mohanjee Sharma son of Mahabir Sharma 2. Vyas Sharma 3. Subas Sharma 2 and 3 sons of Bikarma Nand Sharma 4. Babu Nand Sharma 5. Badri Sharma sons of Uma Nand Sharma., all resident of village Hakim Tola, P.O. & P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. …….Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellants : Mr.Yogendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ----------- 03/ 22.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.210 of 1979, which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said title suit was decreed on contest by the learned 1st 2 Additional Munsif, Gopalganj vide his judgment and decree dated 23.05.1983. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed T.A. No.37 of 1983, which was dismissed on contest by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Gopalganj vide his judgment and decree dated 26.02.1994. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the specific conclusion that the registered lease deed (Ext.1) executed by ex-landlord Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh in respect of Plot No.3423 which admittedly was adjacent to the disputed land of the plaintiffs in which ex-landlord had shown the boundary of the said land towards the south which showed that in the year 1955 the ex-landlord had admitted and recognized the plaintiffs as owner of the suit land. The learned courts below also found that the father of the plaintiffs got the settlement of the suit land from the ex-intermediaries and had throughout remained in possession of the said land as exclusive owner thereof. It was also found from the materials on record that after the settlement in favour of the plaintiffs they had perfected their title over the suit land by continuous, long and uninterrupted possession, but the defendants had miserably failed to show that said continuity of possession had ever been disrupted. The Learned courts below also found that the documents produced by the defendants did not at all falsify the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and hence they were 3 not of any help to the claim of the defendants. In the said circumstances the claim of the plaintiffs was allowed by both the learned courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, 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)