IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.51 of 2009 Jagdish Yadav Versus Triloki Yadav & Ors ----------- 8 03.08.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal has been field against the judgment and decree dated 16th December, 2008 passed in M.T.A. 10 of 2000 by Additional District Judge, F.T.C. III, Jamui, affirming the judgment and decree dated 10th May, 2000 passed by Munsif, Jamui in T.S. No. 19 of 1990. The plaintiff has filed T.S. No. 19 of 1990 seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 27.02.1989 executed in favour of defendant Ist set is illegal and inoperative and the transferee defendant Ist set had not acquired any right and title on the basis of the sale deed. Bereft of all other details, the fact as pleaded by the plaintiff is that the defendant second set was the title holder of the suit property and he executed an agreement for sale on 07.05.1988 in favour of the plaintiff promising to sell the suit land and had also received part of the consideration money by way of advance. However, the said second set defendant (Chotan Singh) executed a sale deed dated 27.02.1989 in favour of the defendant No. 1 ignoring the agreement for sale with the plaintiff as above mentioned. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant second set Chotan Singh cancelled the sale deed dated 27.02.1989 by a deed of cancellation dated 20.07.1989 and had executed a sale deed on 31.08.1989 in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has sought for the relief against the defendant No. 1 as above mentioned. The defendants appeared and contested the statement of facts and claim made by the plaintiff. One of the major grounds to resist the suit of the plaintiff by the defendants No. 1 was his assertion that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the alleged earlier agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff. Both the parties led evidence on the issues framed in the suit which also included an issue as to whether the defendant No. 1 was a bona fide purchaser of value without notice of the Baibeyananama (agreement for sale) in favour of the plaintiff. After considering the evidence and hearing the parties both the Courts have reached to the concurrent finding of fact that the defendant Ist set (subsequent purchaser) had no notice of the alleged agreement for sale dated 07.05.1988 prior to the execution of sale deed dated 27.02.1989. It has been further held by both the Courts below that the defendant Ist set is in possession over the suit land. The learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal contended that in view of the Baibeyananama already executed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant Ist set could not have acquired any right over suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 27.02.1989 and both the Courts below, on wrong appreciation of evidence, have recorded the findings in favour of the defendant Ist set. It has been further submitted, by referring to evidence as mentioned in the impugned judgment, that the inference drawn by the Courts below are not reasonable. The learned counsel has also pressed the I.A. No. 4498/10 and has prayed for setting aside the abatement of appeal against the heirs of the deceased Chotan Singh with further prayer to allow the heirs to be impleaded as party-respondent in this appeal. After considering the submission on behalf of the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, it appears that the entire material evidence led by the parties have been considered and the findings arrived by the Courts below are based upon those evidence. Merely because a different view may be possible on the same set of evidence cannot be a ground for interference in second appellate jurisdiction unless the findings are shown to be patently perverse. The appellant has failed to establish that the findings of fact as arrived by the Courts below are perverse or unreasonable. As such there is no substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Further the I.A. No. 4498 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Chapter VI Rule 4 of the Patna High Court Rules, praying for setting aside the order of abetment of the appeal as against the respondent No. 3 and to allow the legal heirs of Chotan Singh to be impleaded as respondents in this appeal. From the statement made in the interlocutory application, it appears that Chotan Singh died during the pendecy of the appeal in the Court below and the petition for substitution in that regard had also been dismissed by the Appellate Court below. It has also been stated that the heirs of Chotan Singh are not necessary parties to this appeal. It appears that the appellant had proceeded with the appeal in the court below without the heirs of the deceased Chotan Singh as parties and the rejection of the prayer for substitution in that regard has attained finality. The present interlocutory application is misconceived and is dismissed. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Saif ( V. Nath, J.)