IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.491 of 2009 Sikandar Sah @ Sikandra Sah Versus Sarjug Yadav & Ors. ----------- 4. 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of reversal by the Appellate Court. There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Mangan Gope and had an area on 1 Bigha 4 kathas 10 Dhurs. It is also not disputed that Mangan Gope had got three sons, namely, Budhan Gope, Shiv Lal Gope and Faudar Gope. The plaintiff claims himself to be purchaser from the transferee of two sons Shiv Lal Gope and Faudar Gope. The defendants claim themselves to be purchaser from Musba Devi, daughter of the third son Budhan Gope. The plaintiff on the basis of his purchase has filed the suit praying for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession with the further declaration that the sale deed executed by Musba Devi on 19.01.1987 in favour of the defendants is a void 2 documents. The defendants have come out with the case that the suit land was the exclusive property of Budhan Gope who died in the year 1959 in state of separation from his brothers. It is also the case of the defendants that there had been partition by metes and bounds among the sons of Mangan Gope and after the death of Budhan Gope his daughter succeeded to the property allotted in the name of Budhan Gope. The defendants have also asserted their exclusive possession over the suit land. The Trial court has considered the evidence, pleadings and rival submissions of the parties and has upheld the claim of the plaintiff. However, the Appellate Court, in appeal by the defendants, has, on reappraisal of the evidence, reversed the findings of the Trial Court and consequently non-suited the plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the Appellate Court below has wrongly allowed the appeal by overlooking material evidence of the plaintiff as well as the pleadings. It has been further urged that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court are sound and valid but the Appellate Court below 3 without considering the same has allowed the appeal. After perusal of the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, it appears that the original ownership of Mangan Gope has been admitted by both the parties and the fact that he had three sons also stands admitted. The plaintiff claims his title over the entire land of Mangan Gope on the basis of his purchase from Ram Anuragah Yadav stating him to be transferee from the two sons of Mangan Gope on the assertion that after the death of the third son Budhan Gope, his daughters did not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit land. However, the plaintiff has also obtained a Bajidawa from Musbha Devi daughter of Budhan Gope and the said Bajidawa has been brought on record by the plaintiff as Exhibit-2/c. The appellate Court below has quoted the passage from the Bajidawa which goes to suggest that after the payment of the consideration Musba Devi has delivered possession to the plaintiff over the suit land and the Appellate Court has rightly concluded on the basis of this Bajidawa that the heirs of Budhan Gope had interest in the suit property. Moreover, the Appellate 4 Court has also taken notice of the admission by the plantiff regarding existence of another daughter of Budhan Gope who has not been made a party to the suit and it has been rightly concluded on that basis that another daughter of Budhan Gope was a necessary party to the suit and non-impleading her as a party defendant in the suit is fatal to the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Court have been on the basis of extensive analysis of the evidence of record. During the course of argument nothing could be shown to establish that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are perverse. As such, there is no substantial question law arising in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Saif ( V. Nath, J.)