IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.18 of 2005 ----------- 1. Gaya Sah 2. Bidya Sah alias Bidya Nand Sah 3. Uday Sah 4. Jai Kishor Sah All sons of Mangar Sah, residents of village Maker, P.O. and P.S. Maker, District Saran. …..Defendants-Appellants-Appellants versus 1. Priya Ranjan 2. Manoranjan Kumar Mishra Sons of late Shiv Shankar Mishra 3. Arti Kumari, minor daughter of late Shiv Shankar Mishra through Natural guardian Priya Ranjan Mishra, son of late Shiv Shankar Mishra. 4. Ravi Ranjan 5. Sashi Ranjan Kumar Mishra Both minor sons of late Shiv Shankar Mishra, through natural Guardian Priya Ranjan Mishra, son of late Shiv Shankar Mishra, Resident of village, P.O. and P.S. Maker, District Saran. …….Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. ------ 11/ 11.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.212 of 1994, which was filed by plaintiffs-respondent-respondents for declaration of their title over the suit land and also for recovery of possession and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif-II, Chapra vide his judgment and decree dated 07.06.2003. 2 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 33 of 2003 (18/2003), which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-IX, Saran (Chapra) vide his judgment and decree dated 08.11.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, but it is not in dispute that the plot concerned measured 6 kathas 10 dhurs, out of which 10 dhurs were settled by the ex-intermediary in favour of the defendants, whereas, 3 dhurs were settled by the ex-intermediary in favour of predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they acquired the suit property by registered deeds of transfer dated 28.08.1978 and 25.08.1981 and they were given exclusive possession thereof, but subsequently on 30.03.1994 they were forcibly evicted from the suit premises by the defendants and they had no option but to file the aforesaid suit in the year 1994 itself. On the other hand, the defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs, inter-alia, claiming that they have acquired title in the suit premises by adverse possession. 6. Both the learned courts below very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and came to the specific finding that the defendants could not produce any material 3 whatsoever that they had any right, title or interest in the suit land and that the said 3 dhurs of suit land were not part and parcel of the 10 dhurs of land settled with the defendants. As the defendants had claimed adverse possession over the aforesaid 3 dhurs , the onus was squarely upon them to show that they were in possession of the suit land since 12 years or more but both the learned courts below came to exclusive findings that there was nothing on record to show that the said 3 dhurs of land came in possession of the defendants twelve years prior to the institution of the suit, whereas, the plaintiffs had been able to prove that they were dispossessed by the defendants on 30.03.1994, hence there was no question of any adverse possession. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts 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. )