IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No. 21 of 2006 Alakhdeo Prasad Singh son of Hari Singh, resident of village Gosain Bigha, P.S. Akbarpur, P.O. Bhanail, District Nawadah……………….……..Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Suma Devi wife of Late Chandrika Mahton 2. Mithilesh Prsasad 3. Jitendra Prasad 4. Sudhir Prasad 5. Anil Prasad 6. Amresh Kumar @ Amesh Kumar all 2 to 6 are sons of Late Chandrika Mahton @ Chandrika Singh 7. Minta Devi daughter of Late Chandrika Mahton @ Chandrika Singh, all residents of village Gosain Bigha, P.S. Akbarpur, District Nawadah 8. Chandra Mani Singh son of Late Ganga Singh alleged Secretary of Dangi Sub-Divisional Samittee, New Area, Nawadah 9. Uma Kant Prasad alleged Mahamantri Anumandaliya Dangi Samittee, Nawadah 10. Ram Bilas Singh alleged Upadhyakasha Anumandaliya Dangi Samittee, Nawadah 11. Jagdish Mahto alleged Adhyaksha Anumandaliya Dangi Samittee Nawadah, 12. Baleshwar Prasad alleged member 13. Krishna Deo Prasad alleged member 14. Brahamdeo Prasad alleged member all 12 to 14 are members of Anumandaliya Dangi Samittee, Nawadah, P.O. and P.S. Nawadah, District Nawadah ………Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellant : M/s S.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha and Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocates. For the respondents : None ----------- 07/ 23.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.116 of 1994, 2 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of his title over the suit land and also for confirmation of his possession with respect thereto and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Nawadah vide his judgment and decree dated 30.09.2002. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal No.25 of 2002 (72/2003), which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Nawadah vide his judgment and decree dated 15.12.2005. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it appears that admittedly the original owner of the suit property, namely Gayatri Devi sold the suit property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 01.07.1987 (Ext.2). It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1988 (Ext.4) in favour of Dangi Anumandaliya Samittee, Nawadah through its patron Bal Govind Prasad. The dispute between the parties arises from this point, as the plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid sale deed dated 04.01.1988 (Ext.4) executed by him was merely a sham, showy and fictitious document conferring no right, title or interest on the said Samittee and it was also without payment of the consideration money. But strangely enough, no relief for declaration of the said sale deed as sham, showy, fictitious and without consideration had been sought by the plaintiff in the title 3 suit which was a simple suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. 6. Furthermore, since on 04.01.1988 the plaintiff was owner of the suit property and the said sale deed dated 04.01.1988 (Ext.4) having admittedly been executed by him, if the plaintiff was not finding it legal and proper he could have challenged the said deed before a court of law, but he never did so. The learned courts below also after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, had rightly come to the conclusion that the burden of proof of showing the said sale deed dated 04.01.1988 (Ext.4) as sham, showy and fictitious was on the plaintiff, but he failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the said document as sham, showy and fictitious, rather on the basis of the said sale deed the Samittee got itself mutated vide Mutation Case No.1276/1991-1992 (Ext.G) with respect to the suit land and regularly paid rent, whereas neither the name of the plaintiff was mutated nor any rent receipt has been produced by him. 7. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned courts below also came to the conclusion that the deed of Bazidawa executed by Bal Govind Prasad in favour of the plaintiff dated 07.08.1992 (Ext.2/B) was absolutely frivolous, as on that date he was not the patron of the Samittee and had no right or authority to transfer the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The learned courts below also found from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that the Samittee took resolution (Ext.F) and 4 authorized its patron Chandramani Singh to sell the suit land and accordingly a registered sale deed dated 28.09.1992 (Ext.D) was executed by the said Chandramani Singh as patron of the Samittee in favour of defendant no.1 Suma Devi, whereafter the said purchaser got her name mutated and paid rent after obtaining rent receipts, which were clearly proved by the materials on record. 8. In the said facts and circumstances, 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.)