IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.204 of 2004 MUNNIYA DEVI @ PURNIMA DEVI & ORS. Versus SUGANDHI DEVI & ANR. ----------- 09. 15.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the defendants-appellants- appellants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents- respondents. This matter arises out of Title Suit No.110 of 1980 which was filed by the respondents for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed by the learned Additional Munsif-2, Siwan by judgment and decree dated 07.09.1995 holding that plaintiffs had right and title over the suit property and that Ramrati Devi wife of Jai Sri Prasad had no right or title to execute the deed of gift in favour of others as claimed by the defendants. The said judgment and decree of the learned trial court was challenged by the defendants-appellants in Title Appeal No. 95 of 1995. During the pendency of the said title appeal the learned lower appellate court asked the trial court to give specific findings on two points, namely, whether Mahendra Kurmi died in the state of jointness with his brother Laxman Kurmi and whether Mahendra kurmi died leaving behind two daughters, namely, Rampati Devi and Ramrati Devi. The learned trial court considered the matter in detail along with the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and came to the conclusion that Mahendra Kurmi was married and had two daughters, namely, Rampati Devi and Ramrati Devi and that - 2 - Mahendra Kurmi died in 1914 in jointness with his brother Laxman Kurmi. Thereafter, the matter was finally considered by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Siwan and by its judgment and decree dated 07.09.1995 dismissed the title appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. It was specifically found by the learned lower appellate court that the plaintiff had been able to prove that Mahendra Kurmi died in 1914 in jointness with his brother Laxman Kurmi and hence, the defendants can have no right, title and interest in the suit property. It was also held that the plaintiffs had been able to prove by evidence, both oral and documentary, that they had right, title and interest in the suit property on the basis of registered documents. On account of aforesaid concurrent findings based on evidence, this court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)