IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.14 of 2005 SMT.SHYAM SUNDARI KUMARI & ANR. Versus RAM UDAY SINGH & ORS. ----------- 04/ 29.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 65 of 1980 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants for declaration that Mahdanama dated 08.01.1968 and the decree passed in Title Suit No. 27 of 1969 by learned Munsif-II, Begusarai and the order passed in Miscellaneous Case no. 19 of 1978 by the learned Subordinate Judge were null and void and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif-II, Begusarai vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.1998 against which the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 12 of 1998 which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-2, Begusarai vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants have filed the instant second appeal. From a perusal of the impugned judgments and decree, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below have considered the pleadings and evidence on record, whereafter it had arrived at a definite finding that Borhan Singh died some time in the year 1963 in jointness with his widow Ramdani Devi and only son Ram Bahadur Singh and unmarried daughter, whereafter according to the Hindu Succession Act, Ram Bahadur Singh(defendant no.2), being the only son as male member of the family, was Karta of the family and in that capacity 2 he executed a Mahadanama dated 08.01.1968 in favour of Ram Udai Singh (defendant no.1). It was also found that there was no paper of partition and mere assertion that the plaintiff got the suit land in her share in partition which was not sufficient to prove her case as no cogent evidence was produced on behalf of the plaintiffs even about the manner of partition, whereas on the other hand, the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants fully proved that the alleged Mahdanama was executed by defendant no.1 for the purpose of the marriage of his sister. It was also found that the plaintiffs had not given the details and descriptions of the entire lands left by late Borhan Singh rather they only mentioned about the suit land measuring 02 Kathas and 03 Dhurs situated in Mauza Bihat, although it had come into evidence that Borhan Singh had lands in two villages. It was also found that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 27 of 1969 and Miscellaneous Case No. 19 of 1978 were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the said judgment and decree and the order passed in title suit and appeal and its Miscellaneous Case No. 19 of 1978 were not collusive and fraudulent and the same were binding upon the plaintiffs. In the said 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. harish/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)