JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No. 278 of 2005 · Patna High Court

1 (a) Anil Kumar Mishra (b) Sunit Kumar Mishra ( c ) Naveen Kumar Mishra (d) Bipil Kumar Mishra All sons of late Shiv Kumar Mishra. (e) Rekha Kumari daughter of late Shiv Kumar Mishra.

Chandra Kumar Mishra son of late Babuelal Mishra, all residents of village Balirajpur, P.S. and Anchal Babubarhi, District- Madhubani. …. Plaintiff- appellants- Respondents 1st Set.

Brahamdeo Sharma son of Jageshwar Sharma.

Muchchai Das son of Sukhi Das.

Jainarayan Jha son of late Laxmi Narain Jha.

Jibachh Mandal son of Shiv Nandan Mandal, all residents of village- Balirajpur, P.S. and Anchal Babubarhi, District- Madhubani. … Plaintiff- Appellants- Respondent 2nd Set. ----------- 11/ 10-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the Defendants- Respondents- Appellants, challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below.

3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.119 of 1985 which was filed by the plaintiffs- appellants- respondents 1st Set for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of plaintiff no.2 over schedule- 1 land and of plaintiff no.1 over schedule-2 lands and alternatively for recovery of possession, if they are found to be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and also for a direction to the defendants to de-list the suit land, which is tank, from the Sairat register of the Government and for other ancillary reliefs. - 2 -

4. The said suit was dismissed on contest with costs by the learned Subordinate Judge- 4, Madhubani by judgment and decree dated

30.06.1994 which was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No. 32 of

1994. The said title appeal was allowed on contest with cost against the defendant 1st party by the learned Additional District Judge-2, Madhubani by judgment and decree dated 22.07.2003 , reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. The said judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court is under challenge in the instant second appeal.

5. The learned court of appeal below has considered the entire pleadings and evidence of the parties and came to specific finding that admittedly the signature of Patwari was on the back of the receipt and hence non-existence of signature of Patwari or Malik on the first page of the receipt ( Ext. 3 series) would not make the document illegal and the said Ext.3 along with other evidence fully proved settlement by the ex-intermediary in favour of the transferee of the plaintiffs. The learned lower appellate court has also rightly found that the title can be acquired by settlement by such receipts followed by possession which was fully proved by the witness of the plaintiffs. It was also found by the said court that in absence of any valid material adduced by the defendants the khatian ( Ext.-11) had the presumptive value of possession as its entries clearly show the names of the plaintiffs. It is also apparent from the material on record including the judgment and decree of the learned courts below that neither the return or any other document was produced by the defendants to show that the suit tank came in possession of the State of Bihar after vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Records Act, rather on the other - 3 - hand the Government receipts, Ext. 2 series, fully show that the plaintiffs were accepted by the State of Bihar as raiyats of the suit tanks.

6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment 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. B.Tiwary/ (S.N Hussain,J)