IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.253 of 1999 1. Asarfi Sah 2. Sunfi Sah Both sons of late Sakhi Sah Resident of village-Patrahikala, P.O.-Apahar, P.S. Bheldi, District-Saran at Chapra …..Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants. Versus 1. Shilawanti Devi W/o late Manager Rai 2. Larkesh Kumar 3. Munna Rai Both minor sons of late Manager Rai under guardianship of their mother 4. Lalpati Devi W/o late Raghunath Rai mother of late Manager Rai. All are resident of Jalalpur, P.O. Aphar, P.S. Bheldi,District- Saran. 5. Jagdish Singh, S/o late Agan Singh, resident of village-Apahar, P.O. Apahar, P.S. Amnaur, District-Saran 6. Dina Nath Singh S/o late Hira Lal Singh, resident of village-Pachalakha, P.O. Pachalakha,P.S. Parsa,District-Saran. …Defendants 1st party-Appellants-Respondent 1st set. 7(a) Satya Narayan Sah 7(b) Rukhia Devi 7(c ) Meera Devi 7(d) Pati Ram Sah 7(e) Prabhawati Kumari 7(f) Bhagat Sah …Defendant 2nd party-Respondent 2nd set-Respondent 2nd set. For the appellants : M/s Pawan Kumar Mishra and Jyoti Shankar, Advocates. For the respondents : None ----------- 17/ 23.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- respondents-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 38 of 1991(4/91), which was filed by the appellants for declaration that 2 sale deed dated 15.02.1991 executed by defendants 2nd party in favour of defendants 1st party for Rs.40,000.00 with respect to the suit property is null and void, fraudulent, without consideration and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for restraining defendants 1st party from dispossessing the plaintiffs from suit property as well as from interfering with their possession and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Chapra vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.1993 allowing the claim of the plaintiffs that the sale deed dated 15.02.1991 was without payment of consideration amount and was null and void, although it was held that Gangajali was the daughter of Sakhi Sah. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed Title Appeal No.06 of 1994 challenging that part of the judgment and decree of the trial court by which the sale deed in question dated 15.02.1991 was declared to be null and void. However, the plaintiffs did not file any appeal or cross-appeal against that part of the judgment and decree of the trial court by which it was held that Gangajali was the daughter of Sakhi Sah. However, the said title appeal of the defendants was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Chapra vide his judgment and decree dated 27.02.1999 holding that the sale deed in question dated 15.02.1991 executed by Gangajali Devi in favour of defendant was legal and valid and to that effect reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials 3 on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned court of appeal below has very carefully gone into the pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the provisions of law and the case laws referred by both the parties, whereafter it came to the conclusion that since passing of consideration money was challenged by a person other than a party to the sale deed on the question of non-payment of consideration money, the sale deed in question cannot be declared to be illegal in view of the principle laid down in A.I.R. 1928 Patna, 44. It was also held that when the executant of the sale deed has himself come forward and has admitted the execution of the sale deed and payment of consideration amount, the plaintiffs-respondents being stranger to the sale deed cannot challenge either the execution of the sale deed or the payment of consideration money and merely on minor contradictions the sale deed in question cannot be set aside. Furthermore, since the aforesaid sale deed dated 15.02.1991 was executed by Gangajali, who was the daughter and heir of Sakhi Sah, it cannot be held that the same is illegal. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal 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.)