IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.248 of 2007 Ghuran Sharma S/o Jhojhai Sharma Resident of Village Bokaur P.S. and Dist. Supaul Plaintiff- Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Ram Ratan Das s/o Late Ram Bhushan Das Resident of Village Bokaur P.S. and Dist. Supaul Defendant – Respondent-Respondent Ist party 2. Jageshwar Yadav s/o Neba Lal Yadav 3. Jumrati Mian s/o Mianjan Mian Both resident of Village Bokaur P.S. and Dist. Supaul Defendants – Respondents-Respondents 2nd party 4. Bindeshwari Choudhary s/o Ramautar Chaudhary At & PO Bokaur P.S. and Dist. Supaul Defendant – Respondent-Respondent 3rd party ----------------------- For the appellant: Mr Subodh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------------------- 07/ 05.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.11 of 1986 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration that he acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land detailed in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint on the basis of sale deed dated 30.01.1985 said to have been executed by defendant no.1-respondent no.1 in favour of plaintiff-appellant and also for declaration that the sale deed said to have been executed by defendant no.1- respondent- respondent no.1 in favour of defendant 2nd party – respondent - respondent 2nd set on 31.12.1984 and registered on 24.04.1985 was antedated, void. invalid, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and on its basis defendant 2nd party did not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit property. Alternatively the plaintiff has claimed for relief of money - 2 - decree of Rs 7427.74 paise detailed in Schedule 3 of the plaint along with interest thereon and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was partly dismissed and partly decreed exparte against defendant 2nd party on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Supaul holding that the plaintiff was entitled to money decree with respect to consideration money of the sale deed with interest vide his judgment and decree dated 25.08.1995. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiff- appellant filed Title Appeal no.30 of 1995 which was dismissed on contest by the learned District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court no. III, Saharsa, vide his judgment and decree dated 03.08.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below but from consideration of the arguments raised and materials on record including the impugned judgments of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that after considering the pleadings and evidence on behalf of both the parties the learned courts below found that the suit land did not fall within the jurisdiction of Darbhanga Sub-Registrar and the plaintiff also was not able to prove his claim and hence the registration of sale deed dated 30.01.1985 in favour of the plaintiff was void under the provision of section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the learned courts below were considerate enough to allow the alternative claim of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case and decreed the suit with respect to alternative relief of money decree for recovery of the consideration amount with interest - 3 - etc. as claimed by the plaintiff. 6. 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)