IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.458 of 2008 Ratan Maharaj s/o late Mathura Maharaj resident of Mohalla Basudeopur Chandi Asthan P.S. Kotwali P.O. Basudeopur District. Munger Plaintiff- Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Lalita Kumari d/o late Mandhata Singh w/o Randhir Kumar Singh resident of Mohalla Chandi Asthan P.S. Kotwali P.O. Basudeopur District. Munger 2. Geeta Devi d/o late Mandhata Singh w/o Natyanand Singh resident of Village Bishaya P.O. Manikpur P.S. Tarapur District. Bhagalpur 3. Nawal Kishore Singh s/o late Mandhata Singh 4. Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Nawal Kishore Singh Both resident of Mohalla Basudeopur Chandi Asthan P.S. Kotwali P.O. Munger District. Munger Defendants-Respondents- Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr Harshwardhan Sahay, Advocate ----------- 03/ 06.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.07 of 1995 which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that defendants had no right and title over the suit land and sale deed dated 10.07.1967 of the defendants was forged, fabricated and was not binding on the plaintiff and the structure made by defendants on the suit land being illegal and unauthorized was fit to be removed, as also for recovery of possession as well as other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by Additional Munsif VI, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated 27.11.2004. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial 2 court, the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal no.01 of 2005 which was also dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No. I, Munger vide his judgment and decree dated 12.09.2008.Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below but from the materials on record including the impugned judgments, it is quite apparent that the main question to be decided was as to whether the plaintiff-appellant acquired valid right, title and possession over the suit land after death of his mother and whether defendants-respondents have got any right, title and interest over the suit property and have constructed their house illegally. 6. The said issues had been considered by the courts below elaborately on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties where after they had come to concurrent finding of fact that Chandri Devi had sold land to defendant no.1 by registered document exhibit H series and hence defendants-respondents were fully entitled to make construction as absolute owners of the suit land in exclusive possession thereof. So far claim of the plaintiff with regard to map etc of the municipality is concerned, it is found that it had no relevancy in the instant matter and it would not create any right and title in the plaintiff. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the 3 instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid