Judgment Ravi Nandan Sahay, J. This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below dismissing the suit filed in the year 1974 before the Munsif, Hajipur for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with respect to the lands described in Schedules of the plaint. 2. The suit was filed in the following circumstances. The common ancestor of the contesting parties was one Hittan Thakur, who had three sons, namely, Kamleshwar Thakur, Singheshwar Thakur and Gopi Nath Thakur, Kamleshwar Thakur died leaving behind only one son Murlidhar Thakur, who also died issueless and thus his branch became extinct. Singheshwar Thakur died leaving behind a son Pramod Thakur, who was father of the present appellant Devendra Thakur. Gopi Nath Thakur died leaving present defendant respondent no.1 Bigu Thakur, whose wife and sons are other respondents. 3. According to the plaintiffs' case, shortly after cadestral survey operations three sons of Hittan Thakur partitioned their lands as recorded in the cadestral survey and came in possession of their separate properties as allotted in their share and they had no concern with the properties of each other. In the said partition the plaintiffs' father got 3 katha of land from the east of C.S.P. No. 2226 and 3 katha 13½ dhurs in C.S.P. No. 882 and his brother Gopi Nath Thakur got his share in both the plots towards west. They were coming in possession over their respective areas. After separation and partition Pramod Thakur was said to have purchased landed property at village Attaullahpur by registered deed of sale dated 4.8.1904 from Murlidhar Thakur and came in possession of the purchased land. There was exchange of land between the father of the plaintiff and Murlidhar Thakur in the year 1925, whereby plaintiffs father got 9 katha in C.S.P. No. 1 in lieu thereof Murlidhar Thakur was given 9 katha of land from the middle of C.S.P. No. 1774 and 1775 and both of them came in possession of their lands. Murlidhar Thakur died issueless. Pramod Thakur, father of the plaintiff, and Bigu Thakur partitioned their properties half and half, which Murlidhar Thakur got in partition and exchange. Murlidhar Thakur died issueless. Pramod Thakur, father of the plaintiff, and Bigu Thakur partitioned their properties half and half, which Murlidhar Thakur got in partition and exchange. By this partition out of 9 katha of land in C.S.P. No. 1774 and 1775 Bigu Thakur got 4½ katha of land and the plaintiff's father out of total land of 1 bigha 3 katha and 13 dhurs of land over which he remained in possession and after that plaintiff has been coming in possession. 4. The plaintiffs claim to have taken settlement of land of plot nos.1239 and 1561 of village Pojhia Keso from the State of Bihar and he has been coming in possession over these plots. The plaintiff alleged that whatever land the plaintiff got by partition in C.S.P. No. 2226, the defendant got amalgamated with his land and got revisional survey plot carved out as R.S.P. No. 1031 and got it recorded illegally in his own name. It was secondly alleged that 3 katha 13½ dhurs of land of C.S.P. No. 882 which the plaintiff got by partition and which corresponds to• R.S.P. No. 525, there are four R.S.P. Nos. 822, 823, 824 and 825 prepared from C.S.P. Nos. 177 4 and 1775. The defendant's share is 4½ katha in R.S.P. No. 823. 5. It is alleged that in order to harass the plaintiff due to some differences the defendants got R.S. Khata recorded in his name for R.S.P. No. 825 in which the plaintiff had planted five mango trees. It is further alleged that the defendants had also got 16 dhurs from west of plaintiff's plot. No.824 amalgamated in his plot no. 823 and 4½ dhurs of land of plaintiff plot no.525 amalgamated in R.S.P. No. 825 and 3 katha land of plaintiff of C.S.P. No. 2226 has been amalgamated in plot no.1031. It was also said that 16 dhurs of land of R.S.P. No. 536 and 537 from the west had been amalgamated in defendant's R.S.P. No. 538. The defendants got these lands recorded in their name in collusion with the survey authorities. Then it was alleged that the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiff from 6 katha 12 dhurs of land of R.S.P. No. 825 on 5.12.1974 by forcibly sowing wheat, and this is the subject matter of the dispute described in Schedule-1 of the plaint and the rest is given in Schedule-2 of the plaint. 6. Then it was alleged that the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiff from 6 katha 12 dhurs of land of R.S.P. No. 825 on 5.12.1974 by forcibly sowing wheat, and this is the subject matter of the dispute described in Schedule-1 of the plaint and the rest is given in Schedule-2 of the plaint. 6. According to the written statement filed by respondent no.1 Bigu Thakur, the allegation in the plaint was not correct. According to the defendant, Pramod Thakur died in the year 1947. As regards partition among the three branches, his case is that the defendant's branch got entire lands of C.S.P. No. 2226. Murlidhar Thakur got C.S.P. No. 2227 and 2228 and father of the plaintiff got C.S.P. No. 2231 as the area of all these plots were equal. They were coming in possession as per said partition when Murlidhar died in 1950 issueless and they got partition of the lands of Murlidhar share. There was a panchayati of village Panchaj, who prepared a registered memorandum of partition it was registered before the Muzaffarpur Registration Office. Both the parties came in possession of their allotted shares of lands and got their names mutated in the Zamindari Sirista and State of Bihar and obtained rent receipts accordingly. The revisional survey records were subsequently prepared accordingly. 7. Learned Munsif found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit land. Learned Munsif held that Ext.-C the registered memorandum of agreement dated 13.2.1952 disproved the plea of exchange set up by the plaintiff. The learned appellate court found that the defendants are coming in possession since 1911. It was further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that C.S.P. No. 2226 belonged to the plaintiff. The case of dispossession of the plaintiff was also not proved. 8. Following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal : (i) Whether the judgments of the courts below are bad in law because they have failed to consider the issue of title of the plaintiff in respect of 5 katha 16 dhurs ? (ii) Whether the judgment of the appellate court is bad in law because of non-consideration of oral evidence of possession and dispossession of P.Ws. 6, 8, 10 and 11 ? (ii) Whether the judgment of the appellate court is bad in law because of non-consideration of oral evidence of possession and dispossession of P.Ws. 6, 8, 10 and 11 ? (iii) Whether the finding of the courts below that the acquisition of land in 1904 was by father of defendant no.1 can be sustained in absence of any legal evidence on record ? 9. The trial court and the appellate court has decided all the points against the plaintiffs on consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The trial court has not accepted the appellants case that they were dispossessed by the defendants on 5.12.1974 from 6 katha 12 dhurs of land but the trial court found that the appellants have not been able to prove with reliable evidence their possession. The story of exchange with Murlidhar Thakur has also not been accepted. The trial court found the evidence of the plaintiffs full of contradiction. The trial court held that it was not clear as to how the defendants got recorded their names as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. So far purchase of 1 bigha 8 katha 3 dhurs of land from Murlidhar Thakur is concerned, the trial court held that the father of the plaintiff was minor when Gopi Nath had purchased the land in the name of the plaintiff's father. It was further held that this land was not purchased after partition but before partition among the three brothers. It was held that the plaintiffs claim that the lands of plot nos.1774 and 1775 exclusively belong to him was not accepted. According to the finding, plot nos.1774 and 1775 was also partitioned in equal share among three brothers. The case of amalgamation of plot no.525 with R.S.P. No. 882 and C.S.P. 2226 was also not accepted. The trial court held that the defendants case was supported by Pleader Commissioner's report showing their possession. 10. Learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. The Subordinate Judge upheld all the findings of the trial court. The appellate court has held that Ext.-D the report of the Pleader Commissioner filed by the defendants falsified the case of the plaintiff about self acquisition of C.S.P. No. 1774 and 1775. The Pleader's Commissioner's Report is very significant. The Subordinate Judge upheld all the findings of the trial court. The appellate court has held that Ext.-D the report of the Pleader Commissioner filed by the defendants falsified the case of the plaintiff about self acquisition of C.S.P. No. 1774 and 1775. The Pleader's Commissioner's Report is very significant. The appellate court in his well discussed judgment held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case against the defendants. In view of the overwhelming documentary evidence, it is not necessary to consider those evidence. It is pertinent that the plaintiff has been fighting several criminal and civil litigations against the respondents and he has always been looser. The case of dispossession is disbelieved by both the courts below and the appellants are not entitled to any relief. 11. Secondly, this appeal is concluded by pure findings of fact and the questions raised do not arise for consideration. This appeal is accordingly dismissed but without costs.