IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.267 of 2009 Bhudeo Mandal Versus Anil Kumar Mandal & Ors ---------------------------------- 8 25-10-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal challenging the judgment of the appellate court dismissing his appeal. The plaintiffs have claimed right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the mother of the defendant. The plaintiffs have also prayed for declaration that the revenue records prepared in the name of the defendant with regard to the suit property are illegal and fit to be cancelled. The relief for grant of injunction against the defendants has also been sought for. The defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement stating, inter alia, that his mother Sudama Devi cancelled the two sale deeds executed by her in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs now cannot claim right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of the said sale deeds. It is also the case of the defendant that the judgments and decrees passed in the earlier title suits were collusive and not binding upon the defendant. The trial court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence has come to the finding that the two sale deeds dated 19-7-1973 executed by Sudama Devi(mother of the defendant) are still legal and valid documents and had not been set aside by any competent court. It has been also found that the 2 decree passed in the two title suits i.e., T.S.No.204 of 1973 and T.S.No. 104 of 1974 have attained finality and binding upon the parties. On the basis of these findings the suit has been dismissed. The appellate court reappraised the evidence of the parties in view of their rival submissions and have come to the conclusion that the cancellation deed alleged to have been executed by Sudama Devi was not sufficient to take away the legal effect of the registered sale deeds standing in favour of the plaintiffs. It has been also found that the judgments and decrees passed in the two title suits are binding on the defendant-appellant and consequently in view of these findings the appeal has been dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that Sudama Devi was an illiterate lady and was ignorant of the provisions of law and therefore the deed of cancellation executed by her will have the effect of taking away the rights acquired by the plaintiffs on the basis of those sale deeds. It has been further contended that the judgments of the title suits i.e., T.S.No. 204 of 1973 and T.S.No. 104 of 1974 would not be binding upon the appellant and the appellant was not required to challenge those judgments. The learned counsel has also submitted that both the courts below have not considered the evidence on record showing that the suit lands have been entered into in the name of the appellant in the revenue records and he is in possession of the same. On the basis of these findings it has been argued that substantial questions of law arise for 3 consideration in this appeal. It is not in dispute that the property belonged to Sudama Devi, who by the registered sale deeds had transferred the same to the plaintiffs. It is well-settled by now that cancellation of a document/deed will have no legal effect unless and until the same is successfully challenged before a competent court and the decree obtained for its cancellation. It is also not in dispute that the decrees passed in the two suits have also not been challenged by the appellant. In this view of the matter, both the courts have committed no illegality in granting the decree to the plaintiffs. The submission regarding ignorance of law cannot be momentous enough to ignore the provisions of law even after getting the knowledge of the same and contesting the suit. During the course of argument nothing could be pointed out to establish the fact that even after getting knowledge of the legal remedy open to him, the defendant had taken any steps. The entries in the revenue records have rightly been declared to be illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)