IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.5 of 2005 Santokhi Mandal & Ors Versus Rajendra Singh & Anr ---------------------------------- 14 15-12-2011 Heard Mr. R. K. Kanth, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment of affirmance. The suit has been filed for declaration of title, and the sale deed executed by plaintiff no.1 in favour of the defendants and further the sale deed executed by defendant 2nd set in favour of defendant 1st set have also been assailed. The plaintiffs’ case is that the sale deed, which has been obtained by the defendant 1st set from plaintiff no.1 was without consideration and further the sale deed, which has been obtained by defendant 1st set from defendant 2nd set was also not an operative document because the vendors of the 2nd defendant had themselves no valid title to transfer the same to the purchaser. Both the courts below have, after considering the evidence, pleadings and rival submissions of the parties, disbelieved the case of the plaintiffs and have come to the finding that the sale deed in favour of the defendant 2nd set is valid and operative document conveying valid title over the suit land to the defendant 1st set. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the core issue in the suit was the status of the vendor of the defendant 2nd set from whom the defendant 1st set have purchased the suit land but no issue has 2 been framed and as such the finding in this regard is vitiated. It has also been urged by the learned counsel that both the courts below have also not considered the plea of the plaintiffs that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by plaintiff no.1 in favour of defendant 1st set was without consideration. The learned counsel, thus, has submitted that the substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. After perusing the impugned judgments and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that the sale deed executed by plaintiff no.1 in favour of defendant 1st set has been executed in the year 1972 and the suit has been filed in the year 1993. Moreover, the appellate court has also found that on the said sale deed the son of the plaintiff no.1 appeared as a witness, which fact has also been admitted. Thus, there is no infirmity in the finding of the courts below that the relief with regard to the sale deed dated 9-9-1972 executed by plaintiff no.1, Santokhi Mandal, was barred by limitation. It appears from the impugned judgments that the status of Bhikha Mandal, the father of the vendor of defendant 2nd set, alleged to have died issuless , has also been gone into in view of the evidence led by the parties. The appellate court after considering the evidence on record has also taken notice of the shifting stand of the plaintiffs with regard to the status of Bhikha Mandal and has thereafter disbelieved the case of the plaintiffs in that regard. It is well-settled that when the parties are fully aware of the issues arising in between them and they led their evidence, 3 the non-framing of that issue cannot be considered to be momentous enough to vitiate the judgments. From the perusal of the judgments of both the court below, it appears that all the issues between the parties have been finally settled by the concurrent findings of fact. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)