IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.124 of 1997 ---- 1. Ram Narain Das S/o Baboolal Das 2. Sita Devi W/O Uchit Das 3. Jipsy Devi W/o Ram Sewak Das 4. Batani Devi W/O Parmeshwar Das All Resident of Rajoopur Gouri Pergana Bade Bhushari P.O. Garhpura, P.S.Knodawanpur, District Begusarai. -- Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Ram Saroop Rai son of Banke Roy, deceased, Resident of Village Jagarnathpur alias Mortor Pergana Bade Bhusari P.O. Malipur, P.S. Bakhari District Begusarai. --Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent Ist Set.. 2. Ram Udai Das 3. Ram Sagar Das Both minor sons of Ram Narain Das under the guardianship of Shri Mahendra Prasad Singh, Advocate, Begusarai. 4. Chhote Das, minor son of Ram Narain Das under the guardianship of Shri Mahendra Prasad Singh, Advocate, Begusarai. 5. Most. Janakman W/O Late Shri Das. 6. Mal Bhogi Das 7. Ram Bahadur Das 8. Mahendra Das All sons of Late Sri Das Under the guardianship of Sri Mahendra Prasad Singh, Advocate, Begusarai. 9. Upendra Das minor son of Mal Bhogi Das. 10. Most. Halfi W/O Late Anrud Das alias Amrud Das 11. Suresh Das 12. Ghothu Das Minor son ofAmrud Das under the guardianship of Sri Mahendra Prasad Singh, Advocate, Begusarai. Respondents 2nd Sets. 13. Ram Roop Das (Since death) 14. Fudi Das. 15. Anup Das Sons of Late Laljee Das of Sagi Tola Gori Gosai Math Pergana Bhushari P.S. Khodawandpur, District- Begusarai. -- Defendants-Respondents- Respondents 3rd Set. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Sushil Kumar Majumdar, Senior Advocate Ms. Mallika Majumdar, Advocate Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ---- - 2 - 06. 18.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No.18 of 1980 (55/1988) which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent- respondent no.1 for declaration of his title and recovery of possession of the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The aforesaid title suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional Munsif-II, Begusarai vide his judgment and decree dated 30-07-1988. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants-appellants filed Title Appeal No.23 of 1988 which was dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Begusarai vide his judgment and decree dated 01.03.1997. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Admittedly Jibu Das and Bhailal were full brothers and Anirudh Das (respondent) is from the branch of Bhailal. The plaintiff had claimed that Jibu Das was issueless and his property devolved upon the branch of his brother Bhailal, but the claim of defendants-appellants is that Jibu Das left behind a daughter Fekni, who had three sons Ramroop Das, Fudi Das and Anup Das who sold the suit properties to the appellants. 6. However, from the arguments as well as materials on - 3 - record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that both the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the finding that Jibu Das was issueless and Fekni was not his daughter. It was also found that after purchase from Anirudh Das, the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land, but was subsequently dispossessed by the defendants-appellants. Hence, it was held by both the learned courts below that the transfer made by the sons of Fekni in favour of the defendants-appellants was not legal and proper and they did not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit property on its basis, whereas it was found that Anirudh Das had full right, title and interest over the suit land which he sold to the plaintiff who acquired full right, title and interest in the said property. 7. Both the learned courts below have arrived at concurrent findings of facts as mentioned above which are based on full appraisal to pleadings and evidence of both the parties and this court does not find any illegality therein, 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.)