IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.288 of 2005 SUKHDEO SAH Versus MOST.RAM PYARI KUER @ MOST.RAM PYARI KAHAR & ORS ----------- 04/ 03.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 159 of 1992 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents 1st set for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant-appellant from using the disputed land in any manner and from interfering with the plaintiffs’ title and possession over the same. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif-II, Sasaram vide judgment and decree dated 14.09.2001 which was challenged by the defendant-appellant in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2001(07 of 2002) which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Sasaram vide judgment and decree dated 24.08.2005. The defendant-appellant has challenged the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below in the instant second appeal. Both the learned courts below have considered the matter in detail and have come to the finding that a consent decree had been passed in Title Suit No. 55 of 1985 which clearly showed that the defendant had relinquished any claim over the suit land and he had also failed to show any transaction of any sort with regard to the said land thereafter. Hence, in the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the plaintiffs-respondents to claim any relief of title in the instant suit. In the facts and circumstances, the learned courts below have found that the defendant had no right, title and interest over the suit land specially when in the final order of consolidation proceeding, the rights of the plaintiffs over the disputed land had been upheld and hence, the decree of the aforesaid Title Suit No. 55 of 1985 was legal and binding upon the parties. In the facts and circumstances, decree passed in the title suit and final decision in the consolidation proceeding, which remained unchallenged, is binding on all the parties to the said proceedings, whereafter the consolidation authorities also passed orders to prepare the records of right in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs as the owner of the property. 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 this second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. harish/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)