IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.135 of 2008 ----------- 1. Shanti Devi, wife of late Budhan Mahto 2. Lalita Devi @ Smt. Lalita Devi, wife of Mahendra Mahto and daughter of late Budhan Mahto 3. Sabita Kumari, @ Sabita Kumari daughter of late Budhan Mahto (since attained majority) All residents of village Barheta, P.O. Amba, P.S. Kutumba, District Aurangabad. …….Plaintitffs-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Smt. Sonkalo wife of Shri Ramdas Mahto, resident of village Jamhore P.S. Jamhore, District Aurangabad. 2. Smt. Sumitra Devi, wife of Sri Raj Mohan Prasad, resident of village Ratwar, P.S. Jamhore, District Aurangabad. 3. Ram Parikha Mahto @ Parikha Mahto, son of Keshwar Mahto 4. Chaman Mahto, son of late Hitan Mahto 5. Faujdar Mistri 6. Kalinder Mistri Both sons of late Suraj Mistri 7. Aditya Mistri @ son of late Mathura Mistry 8. Avtar Mistri @ Avtar Mahto 9. Ram Swaroop Mistri @ Ram Swarup Mahto Both are sons of late Bilas Mistry @ Ram Bilas Mahto 10. Gainia Devi, wife of late Bilas Mistry @ Ram Bilas Mahto All residents of village Barheta, P.O. Amba, P.S. Kutumba, District Aurangabad. 11. Birendra Mahto, son of late Budhan Mahto 12. Rukmini Devi, wife of Muswa Mahto @ Musan Mahto Both residents of village Berheta, P.O. Amba, P.S. Kutumba, District Aurangabad. ….. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents -------- For the appellants : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ------- 06/ 02.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 176 of 1994 ( 37/2002), which was filed by plaintiffs-appellants for 2 declaration that the registered deed of gift dated 06.09.1983 said to have been executed by Budhan Mahto (original plaintiff and predecessor in interest of the appellants) in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 was null, void, illegal, fraudulent, inoperative and not executed by the plaintiffs and as such it was not binding upon them and also for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional Munsif-IV, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 22.03.2002. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 16 of 2002 (115/2007), which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Aurangabad, vide his judgment and decree dated 08.02.2008. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below on the ground that neither Ext.4 ( the registered deed of gift dated 06.09.1983) was executed by the original plaintiff Budhan Mahto with respect to the suit land in favour of defendants no.1 and 2, nor the said donee ever came in possession, rather the said deed was never acted upon and the plaintiffs remained in possession of the suit land and also sold portion thereof to another person vide registered sale deed dated 04.10.1983 (Ext.2). Hence, he submits that the impugned deed of gift was absolutely illegal and conveyed no title and interest upon the defendants. 3 6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and after perusing the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have very carefully considered the pleadings and all the evidences; both oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of both the parties and came to a concurrent finding of fact that the deed of gift dated 06.09.1983 (Ext.4) was executed by the original plaintiff Budhan Mahto on his own free will with respect to the property which belonged to him which was a valid and genuine document, which was accepted by his daughters, namely, defendants no.1 and 2 and which was supported by the donee as well as the witnesses as identifier of the said deed of gift, which was a registered document and there was nothing to show that there was any question of fraud. 7. It was also found by the learned courts below that Ext. `B’ was a registered sale-deed dated 11.07.1985 executed by the original plaintiff Budhan Mahto along with his two daughters (defendants no.1 and 2) in favour of one Ram Parikha Mahto, in which he had made statements, which show that he had full knowledge about the impugned deed of gift dated 06.09.1983. Hence it was found that at least the original plaintiff had the knowledge of the said deed of gift dated 06.09.1983 on 11.07.1985 but he filed the suit challenging the said deed of gift on 07.10.1994 and, accordingly, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. 8. So far the sale deed (Ext. 2) executed by the 4 original plaintiff Budhan Mahto in favour of Aditya Mahto is concerned, the learned courts below had specifically found that the said vendee had himself deposed as D.W.5 and had clearly stated that earlier he had purchased land from Budhan Mahto through Ext. 2 but on its basis he did not come in possession of the suit land and, thereafter, he got the sale-deed executed from defendants no.1 and 2 on 11.07.1985 (Ext. `B’), whereafter, he came in possession of the suit land. Thus, it was proved by evidence that after gift defendants 1 and 2 came in possession of the suit land. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below are covered by findings of facts based on specific pleadings and evidence of the parties. Hence, this Court cannot interfere with such findings in a second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )