IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.251 of 2003 1. Md. Saghiruddin @ Md. Sagir Ajmal, son of Late Khursid Ali. 2. Safarra Khatoon @ Safaira Khatoon, wife of Md. Nijam Tailor. 3. Soghara Khatoon @ Sogra Khatoon, wife of Late Md. Zaimuddin. 4. Majmun Nissa @ Najmun Nissa, wife of Abul Hassan. 5. Taslima Khatoon @ Jasmila Khatoon wife of Md. Nazamuddin. All son and daughters of Late Khursid Ali. All are residents of Mohalla-Ansar Nagar, P.S.-Nawada, District-Nawada. ……Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Bibi Rajda Khatoon, wife of Md. Nezamuddin, resident of Mohalla-Moglakhar, P.S.-Nawadah, District- Nawadah. 2. Amna Khatoon, daughter of Late Khursid Ali, wife of late Md. Israil. 3. Shamsun Nissa, daughter of Late Khursid Ali, wife of Md. Idrish. Both are residents of village-Konanad, P.S.-Asthawan, District-Nalanda. 4. Md. Khalil Ahmad, son of Rahat Hussain, resident of Mohalla-Bhadauni, P.S.-Nawadah, District- Nawadah. 5. Abdul Mannan, son of late Nabi Bux, resident of village-Pakribarawan, P.S.-Pakaribarawan, District-Nawadah. ……….Defendants-Respondents-Respondents For the appellants : Mr. S.S.Dvivedi, Sr. Advocate with M/s L.L. Pandey and R.K.Dubey, Advocates. For respondent nos.4 and 5 : Mr.Raghiv Ahsan, Sr. Advocate with M/s Sanjay Sinha and S.M.Sabir Alam, Advocates. ----------- 12/ 19.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of 2 both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Partition Suit No.172 of 1986 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for a decree of partition of their alleged 09 annas 3 ¾ pies share as well as 2 annas 7 ½ pies share of plaintiff nos.2 to 5 jointly and 09 pies share of plaintiff no.6 and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Nawada vide his judgment and decree dated 29.05.1992. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.22 of 1997 which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Nawada vide his judgment and decree dated 15.09.2003. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below this second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below and raises several points, but it is quite apparent that the suit property exclusively belonged to Md. Hanif who left behind a daughter Rajda from his first deceased wife and also left behind a widow Hakiman who was his second wife. It further transpires that the said Hakiman transferred the suit land in favour of defendant nos.5 and 6 by registered deed of sale dated 25.07.1986 (Ext.B series) whereas the said Rajda transferred the said land to the plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 30.09.1986 (Ext.3 series) and only thereafter the aforesaid suit was filed by the 3 plaintiffs against the said defendants as well as Hakiman and Rajda. 6. Both the learned courts below after very carefully considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the specific conclusion that there was no unity of title and possession between the plaintiffs and defendant nos.5 and 6, as the other heirs of Hanif had already renunciated and relinquished their right and title over the suit property by way of family arrangement which was fully proved by the conduct of the parties. In this mater reference may be made to a decision of this Hon’ble Court in case of Mt. Hashihan vs. Jalaluddin alias Jainuddin and others, reported in 1982 B.L.J. 651. 7. It was also found that the brother of Hanif, namely Khurshid had executed a sale deed as far back as on 22.12.1973 in favour of the husband of plaintiff no.2 with respect to a portion of the suit land. Furthermore, the facts and circumstances of this case show that the sale deed executed by Rajda Khatoon in favour of the plaintiffs was much subsequent to the sale deed executed by Hakiman in favour of defendant nos.5 and 6, but the sale deed executed by Hakiman had not been challenged either by Rajda or by his alleged vendees. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit property on the basis of registered deed executed by Rajda nor could they have any unity of right, title and possession or share in the suit land. 4 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )