IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.18 of 2009 Arjun Singh Kushwaha & Anr Versus Kuber Singh Kushwaha & Ors ----------- 7 14-7-2011 Heard Mr. Arbind Nath Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The plaintiff has filed Title Suit No. 114 of 1993 for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit house as mentioned in Schedule ‘Ka’ of the plaint. The plaintiff has also prayed for declaration that the judgments and decrees passed in Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 by Munsif, Bhabhua and in First Appeal No. 13 of 1989 by Sub- Judge, Bhabhua are not binding upon him. The basis of the plaintiff’s challenge to the judgments and decrees of Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 and First Appeal No. 13/89 is their minority and gross negligence committed by their guardian in protecting /representing their interest in the suit and appeal and this is the main issue upon which the grant of other reliefs to the plaintiff depends. After discussing the evidence and considering the submission the parties, the learned Munsif has come to the finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish 2 their minority and the gross negligence by their guardian as alleged in plaint. In appeal by the plaintiff, the Appellate Court also has come to affirm the said finding against the plaintiff /appellant. The Appellate Court below has also recorded the finding that the father of the plaintiff had sincerely contested the cases and there was no instance of any laches or negligence on his part in conducting the aforesaid two cases i.e. T.S. No. 1 of 1986 and T.A. No. 13 of 1989 (Ext. ‘E’ Series and Ext. ‘F’) as their guardian. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the non-consideration of the report of the Pleader Commissioner, supporting the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property has vitiated the impugned judgments of Courts below. His further submission is that in view of the report of the Pleader Commissioner both the Court’s should have decreed the suit. After considering the facts, circumstances, and findings recorded by both the Court’s below I do not find force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. In view of the concurrent findings by both the Court’s that earlier decree passed in T.S. 01 of 1986 and T.A. 13 of 1989 as above said are binding upon the plaintiffs, there was absolutely no scope for considering any other 3 material for adjudicating the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Moreover, both the Courts below have elaborately considered the material evidence of the parties and reached to concurrent findings of fact on that basis. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Saif ( V Nath, J.)