Judgment NARENDRA NATH TIWARI This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C-VI, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 24/2004 affirming and upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub-Judge-V, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 6/93. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs. They had filed suit seeking reliefs, inter alia, for declaration that the order of renewal of lease in favour of the defendant No.4 is illegal, void, inoperative and is not binding on the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs are entitled for renewal of lease being the legal heirs of Yashoda Devi and that Shital Prasad has no right, title and interest over the suit property. 3. The plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that the suit property being a tiled house constructed over Plot No.149, corresponding to Holding No.136, Ward No.6 (old), Ward No.11 (new) of Hazaribagh Municipality, Mohalla - Oknai, P.S – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh, described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint, originally belonged to Babu Durga Prasad. The said Durga Prasad had acquired the said property by virtue of the registered lease deed dated 25.5.1920 executed by the Secretary of the State. After the death of Durga Prasad, his widow Yashoda Devi inherited the said property. She applied for renewal of lease before the competent authority in the year 1948. Lease was granted and a lease deed was executed and registered on 24.9.1948 in her favour for a period of 30 years commencing from April 1948 to 31st March 1978. The plaintiff is the son of the daughter of Durga Prasad. During the life time of Durga Prasad, the plaintiff was authorized to look after the property of Durga Prasad and to live in the house of Durga Prasad. The plaintiff had been living in the house of Durga Prasad since 1947 and he used to take care of Durga Prasad and Yashoda Devi. In the year 1963, Yashoda Devi died leaving behind the plaintiff as her only legal heir. The plaintiff, thereafter, came in possession of the suit property. In the year 1973, he applied for mutation before the Khas Mahal Officer in respect of a portion of the land belonging to Durga Prasad and Yasoda Devi. Mutation was allowed and correction slip was issued to the plaintiff. He had been paying rent to the State. The plaintiff, thereafter, came in possession of the suit property. In the year 1973, he applied for mutation before the Khas Mahal Officer in respect of a portion of the land belonging to Durga Prasad and Yasoda Devi. Mutation was allowed and correction slip was issued to the plaintiff. He had been paying rent to the State. He had also filed petition for renewal of the lease in respect of the suit property (Schedule 'A'). In the meanwhile, he continued to pay rent to the State and tax to the Municipality. A general notice was published in the newspaper regarding renewal of lease applied for by the plaintiff in Lease Renewal Case No. 178/77-78. One Surendra Kishore Prasad, since dead, had appeared and filed objection to the plaintiff's petition claiming that the suit property belonged to a Trust (defendant No.4) and after the death of Durga Prasad and Yashoda Devi, one Shital Prasad had made a Will dated 28.6.1963 which was probated by the Court of learned District Judge, Hazaribagh in Probate Case No. 21/1963 dated 27.2.1977. The plaintiff, on coming to know about the same, had filed petition for revocation of the same. The matter went up to the High Court and was finally disposed of giving observation that the grant of probate does not extinguish the title of the party. The plaintiff further stated that Shital Prasad was never in possession of the suit property nor he had any authority to execute a will in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff is the only legal heir and he had inherited the suit property and had been in possession of the same. The Additional Collector without appreciating the plaintiff's claim has erroneously renewed the lease in favour of the defendant No.4 in respect of the suit property. The defendant Nos.1-3 have no right to execute the lease deed in favour of the defendant No.4. The said lease deed is illegal and void. 4. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing two sets of written statement. The defendant Nos.1-3 filed joint written statement, whereas, the defendant No.4 filed a separate written statement. In both the written statements, almost same grounds of objection were taken against the plaintiffs. It was, inter alia, stated that after the death of Yashoda Devi in the year 1963, the renewal process was started in Case No. 178/77-78. The defendant Nos.1-3 filed joint written statement, whereas, the defendant No.4 filed a separate written statement. In both the written statements, almost same grounds of objection were taken against the plaintiffs. It was, inter alia, stated that after the death of Yashoda Devi in the year 1963, the renewal process was started in Case No. 178/77-78. The lease was renewed and lease deed was executed in the name of Durga Prasad Trust after observing all the legal formalities, with full knowledge of the plaintiff. The defendants denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff never looked after the property of Durga Prasad, rather he was inducted as a tenant. He was paying rent for occupying an outer room in the house. He remained as tenant till the death of Yashoda Devi. He is not the legal heir of Durga Prasad or Yashoda Devi. After the death of Yashoda Devi, his brother Shital Prasad had performed her last rights. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. During the life time of Druga Prasad, his brother-in-law Shital Prasad used to take care of Durga Prasad. He used to look after Yashoda Devi during her life time and after her death, her last rites was performed by him. In the month of April 1963, Shital Prasad had fallen ill and as such in presence of the witnesses, he had executed a will in favour of Jagdish Prasad, Nageshwar Prasad, Shiv Prasad, Surendra Kishor Prasad, Mahipat Baidya, Rameshwar Lal Agarwal, Rai Jageshwar Prasad Choudhary, Nand Kishor Prasad, Dr. Girija Shankar Prasad constituting a Trust for the benevolent purposes. After the death of Shital Prasad on 9.7.1963, the trustee stepped into the shoes of Shital Prasad and formed the Trust in the name of Durga Prasad as per his last Will. The said Will was probated in Probate Case No. 21/1963 in the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh. The Trust has been functioning since thereafter. The plaintiff has no right, title and concern over the said property belonging to the Trust. The plaintiff had unsuccessfully challenged the said probate in the High Court. The plaintiff has suppressed those facts in the plaint and has made a false claim. 5. On the basis of the said pleadings, several issues were framed by learned Trial Court. 6. The parties adduced their evidences. 7. The plaintiff had unsuccessfully challenged the said probate in the High Court. The plaintiff has suppressed those facts in the plaint and has made a false claim. 5. On the basis of the said pleadings, several issues were framed by learned Trial Court. 6. The parties adduced their evidences. 7. Learned Trial Court thoroughly discussed the facts, materials and evidences on record and on due appreciation and appraisal thereof, came to the conclusion that the renewal of lease in favour of Durga Prasad Trust was valid and enforceable and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for. He further held that the suit was also barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable. Learned Trial Court, thus, dismissed the suit. 8. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Hazaribagh being Title Appeal No. 24/2004. The said appeal was finally heard and disposed of by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C-VI, Hazaribagh. 9. Learned lower appellate Court heard the parties and considered the facts, evidences and materials on record in detail and arrived at his own independent conclusion. 10. Learned lower appellate Court held that the renewal of lease in favour of Durga Prasad Trust is valid and legal and that learned Trial Court has rightly decided the issues. There is no error in his judgment and decree. 11. Learned lower appellate Court, thus, dismissed the appeal. 12. In this second appeal, the appellants have sought to challenge the impugned judgment and decree of learned lower appellate Court mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was found in possession of the suit property. He was the legal heir of Yashoda Devi (the last lessee) and that ignoring his claim, the renewing authority had erroneously renewed the lease in favour of Durga Prasad Trust. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since rent was paid by the plaintiff and several rent receipts were issued to him on the ground of his possession and also being the legal heir of Yashoda Devi, lease should have been renewed only in the name of the plaintiff. Learned Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees without considering the said vital aspect. The same are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, I perused the impugned judgments and decrees of learned Courts below. Learned Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees without considering the said vital aspect. The same are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, I perused the impugned judgments and decrees of learned Courts below. I find that learned Trial Court has discussed the facts, evidences and materials on record in detail and on through appreciation thereof, has come to the finding that the renewal of lease in favour of Durga Prasad Trust is valid and legal. 15. Learned lower appellate Court also meticulously culled out the facts and scrutinized the evidences on record and came to his own independent conclusion affirming the findings recorded by learned Trial Court. 16. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff -appellant failed to establish that he is the legal heir of Yashoda Devi. They have further held that renewal in favour of Durga Prasad Trust is legal and valid and it requires no interference. 17. I find no error or illegality in the said findings as well as in the impugned judgments and decrees of learned Courts below giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided in this second appeal. 18. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.