IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.379 of 2004 BHABA NARAIN JHA Versus RAGHAV RAUT & ORS. ----------- 06/ 16.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant- appellant challenging the judgment and decree of affirmance. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 70 of 1987, which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the same. The said suit was decreed with cost on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Bettiah vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2000, which was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 06 of 2000. The said title appeal was dismissed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, West Champaran vide judgment and decree dated 09.08.2004. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed. The main question to be decided in the suit was as to whether the deed of gift Ext.B, said to have been executed by Tengar Raut and his wife Bhawani Devi in the year 1947 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the defendants, was legal, valid and operative whereafter the donor ceased to have any title on the suit land, whereas the second question was as to whether the plaintiffs 2 had right, title and possession over the suit land on the basis of Ext.2/B, namely a sale deed executed by Tengar Raut and Bhawani Devi in the year 1955 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. The learned courts below considered the entire material in detail and also considered the evidence, both oral and documentary whereafter they came to specific findings that the evidence on record clearly showed that the defendants had failed to prove the fact that the deed of gift, Ext.B was a complete deed of gift conveying title to the alleged donee, whereas it was clearly proved that the said deed was not even executed by one of the alleged donors, namely Tengar Rauut and the said deed of gift was also not properly proved in the case. It was further found that the documents on record went to show that even after the alleged deed of gift of 1947 (Ext.B) the alleged donors Tengar Raut and Bhawani Devi were dealing with the land forming the subject matter of the sale deed after its execution in the year 1947 till 1987 when the defendant got a sale deed executed in his favour. It was thus held that Ext.B was not an operative document and the alleged executants of the deed Tengar Raut and Bhawani Devi did not cease to have title on the suit land after execution of the same. Apart from that, the learned courts below specifically found that one Nand Lal Jha was a witness as well as identifier of the executants of the said deed of gift of 1947(Ext.B) and was also a witness as well as identifier of the same persons, who were transferees in the sale deed of 1955(Ext.2/B), 3 which was executed in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the same land. It was also found that the said Nand Lal Jha was none else than the father of the defendant himself. So far the second question is concerned, the learned courts below specifically found that the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land on the basis of transfer by registered documents right from 1955(Ext.2/B) and hence, they had valid title and possession over the suit land and were entitled to a decree as claimed. 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.)