1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.261 of 2005 1. Rajendra Sharma 2. Arjun Sharma 3. Jadunandana Sharma 4. Sikandar Sharma All sons of late Ganga Sharma 5. Suraj Sharma alias Suraj Mandal, son of late Thethar Mandal All are residents of village Raipur, Via Nagarpara, P.S. Bihpur District Bhagalpur. …Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Collector, Bhagalpur. 2. D.C.L.R. Naugachia, District Bhagalpur. …Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. ---------- 09/ 25.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 209 of 1989, which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration of their right, title and interest with respect to the suit land detailed in Schedule `A’ of the plaint as against the defendant and also to declare that the revisional survey entry was wrong and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Munsif, Naugachia vide his judgment and decree dated 14.05.1996. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 71 of 1996, which was also dismissed on contest 2 without cost by the Additional District Judge-III, Naugachia (Bhagalpur), vide his judgment and decree dated 29.06.2005. Both the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below fully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and found that the plaintiffs’ claim was that the khatiani raiyats sold their land orally to the predecessor of the plaintiffs in the year 1911, whereafter he was mutated in the sirista of the Zamindar. However, the learned courts below found that except the old khatian (Ext.5), nothing else had been produced by the plaintiffs as they could not bring on record any evidence with regard to their purchase or any Zamindari receipt issued by the ex- intermediary nor any return has been produced nor Jamabandi has been created in favour of the plaintiffs after vesting of the Zamindari nor even Register-II was filed and only on the basis of khatian of 1911 and two rent receipts the plaintiffs are basing their entire claim although they failed to prove that the said rent receipts were issued in the names of the plaintiffs on the basis of any order passed by the authority concerned. 6. Furthermore, the learned courts below have found that the revisional survey khatian (Exts.5A and 5B) fully show that the suit land was recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar, in which the nature of land of plots no.12,13,15 and 11(new) was mentioned as `Balu’ (sand), whereas, plot no. 23 was 3 mentioned as `Nadi’(river) and no objection was raised by the plaintiffs at any stage of the revisional survey. It is well-settled principle of law that the entry in the record of right shall be presumed to be correct until and unless it is proved otherwise by evidence. After considering the evidence of the parties, both oral and documentary, the learned courts below came to concurrent findings that the revisional survey entry with respect to the suit land was absolutely correct and justified and the plaintiffs have failed to prove by any evidence that it was incorrect. 7. 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 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. )