IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.14 of 2006 1. Doma Nonia, son of Late Lal Mohar Nonia 2. Reshmi Devi, wife of Doma Nonia. Both resident of village: Khyrmabad, Police Station: Siwan (M), P.O.: District:Siwan. ….Appellants. Versus 1. Bibi Jaibun Nissa, Wife of Asray Mohammad D/o: Munshi Mian 2. Shakeel Ahmad 3. Saidun Hassan Both sons of Ash Mohammad All residents of village: Siwan Purani Quila Pokhara, Siwan, P.O. Siwan, Police Station Siwan (T) Pragna: Bara, District: Siwan. ……Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants: Mr. Sudhir Ranjan, Advocate. ------------ 08. 17.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 328 of 1997 which was filed by the appellants for declaration that gift deed dated 15.09.1997 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 & 3 were forged, fabricated and without consideration and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Siwan vide judgment and decree dated 02.06.2001. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal - 2 - No. 26 of 2001 which was also dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 27.09.2005. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Admittedly the suit property belonged to Munshi Mian and according to the plaintiff the said Munshi Mian sold the suit property along with other properties to Khelafat Hussain by a deed of sale whereafter the said Khelafat Hussain sold the suit property to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants claimed that Munshi Mian never transferred the properties to Khelafat Hussain rather after the death of Munshi Mian it devolved upon his two daughters who came in possession over the same, whereafter it was transferred by registered deed to the defendants who are in possession. 6. Both the learned courts below considered the pleadings as well as the evidence of both the parties and arrived at the finding that the plaintiffs failed to produce any document to show that Munshi Mian had ever transferred the suit property to Khelafat Hussain and hence when the said Khelafat Hussain had no title over the suit property, his transfer to the plaintiffs can not be held legal and valid. It was - 3 - also concurrently found that plaintiffs failed to prove that Khelafat Hussain ever came in possession of the suit premises, whereas the defendants fully proved that it was Munshi Mian and after his death his daughters and thereafter the defendants, who had remained in possession of the suit land and hence the claim of the plaintiffs can not be legally allowed. 7. Both the learned courts below also found that no relief with respect to possession has been sought by the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs not having been found in possession of the suit land and not having proved their possession by any material, the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgments and decree of the learned courts below do not suffer from any illegality nor there is 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 Civil Procedure Code. Vikash/- (S.N. Hussain, J.)