IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.225 of 2004 CHET NARAIN SINGH Versus DEV NATHA MISHRA & ANR ----------- 06/ 16.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the defendant-appellant- appellant. This matter arises out of Title Suit no.16 of 1992 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent-respondents for eviction of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial court, against which the defendant filed title appeal which was dismissed by the learned lower appellate court and hence this second appeal. The appellant has raised a point that the suit land belonged to the State of Bihar and is not owned by the respondents. However, the learned court of appeal below has specifically found that Title Suit No. 24 of 1956 was decided by a judgment and decree by the learned court below earlier holding that the plots involved, part of which is subject matter of the instant suit, did not vest in the State of Bihar. Although the said order in the title suit will not be a res judicata for the instant suit, but it clearly shows that the plots in question did not vest in the State of Bihar. Both the learned courts below after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence had come to a definite finding that the defendant had paid rent to the plaintiffs till 1986, which is proved by Ext.2 as well as oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. Hence, they are also debarred from challenging the title of the plaintiffs. 2 Although the defendants did not produce any evidence on their behalf but they admitted in their written statement that before the vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar they used to pay rent to the plaintiffs and it was only after vesting that they stopped paying rent to the plaintiffs but there is no material to show that the land in suit had vested in the State nor there is anything to show that the defendant had any independent right or title over the suit property. 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 this second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )