IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.129 of 2006 ----- 1. Bindeshwari Prasad son of Late Dularchand Prasad. 2. Nirbhay Kumar minor son of Sri Bindeshwari Prasad under guardianship of his father. Both are resident of village Bahapur Police Station Hilsa (Karai Parsarai) P.O. Sohepur, District- Nalanda. -- Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1. Arjun Prasad son of Late Dularchand Prasad. 2. Sanjay Kumar. 3. Madhurendra Kumar 4. Birendra Kumar Sons of Sri Arjun Prasad 5. Harendra Kumar 6. Pappu Kumar. Respondents no.5 and 6 are minors under the guardianship of Mr. Diwakar Singh, Advocate for G.L.A. defendants no.5 and 6. All are resident of village Bahapur Police Station Hilsa, District Nalanda -Defendants-Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad II, Advocate For the respondents : None ------ 06. 18.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants against the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.32 of 1996 which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by learned Munsif, Hilsa (Nalanda) vide his judgment and decree dated 31.08.1999. The judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No.50 of 1999 which - 2 - was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, I, Hilsa (Nalanda) vide his judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the entire claim of the plaintiffs was based on a partition of the year 1994 and the plaintiffs claimed that as per the said partition, the suit land fell into their share and hence, they have got right, title and possession over the suit land. Learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to definite findings that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove the fact that the suit land along with other lands was allotted to them in partition of 1994, although burden to prove the same was squarely upon them. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are fully supported by the evidence on record. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)