IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.214 of 2005 SMT. ALAR DEVI Versus SRI NAGESHWAR SINGH & ORS. ----------- 05/ 25.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant, who has challenged the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 61 of 1992 which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title over the suit land measuring 04 decimals out of 08 decimals of Plot No.2441 appertaining to Khata No.592 in Mauza Havanpura in the district of Nalanda and also for declaring that the sale deed dated 31.03.1991 executed by Chameli Devi in favour of Nageshwar Singh defendant no.1 and others was fraudulent and void, on the basis of which the defendants did not acquire any title and also for confirmation of possession and alternatively recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Biharsharif vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.1995 which was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal No. 07 of 1995(13 of 2004) which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No.1, Nalanda vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2005. Against the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed by plaintiff. Admittedly the suit property along with other lands belonged to one Sukan Raut-the recorded raiyat, who left behind two sons, 2 namely, Bankey Raut and Dhakku Raut, and a daughter Sakali Devi. The dispute is that according to the plaintiff, Dhakku Raut died issueless in the year 1953 and his wife predeceased, hence the entire property devolved upon his brother Bankey Raut, who died issueless in the year 1958 leaving behind only a widow Bhatani Devi, who inherited the entire property of the family and by registered deed of the year 1964 she gifted plot no.2441 measuring 08 decimals to Raghunandan Raut, son of Sakali Devi, whereafter the said Raghunandan Raut sold the said land to the plaintiff by registered deed in the year 1991. On the other hand, the claim of the defendants was that Dhakku Raut died in the year 1960 leaving behind a son Dukhi and a daughter Chameli Devi, whereafter Dukhi also died issueless and the property of Dhakku Raut was inherited by Chameli Devi, who sold it to defendants-respondents. In the said circumstances the main question in issue was as to whether Dhakku Raut died in the year 1960 leaving behind a daughter Chameli, who had inherited her father’s property. Both the learned courts below considered the entire material in detail and found that plaintiff had tried to show from Exts.3 and 4- Parivarik Register of Bankey Raut that Chameli Devi was not in the family of Bankey Raut but the said Parivarik Register did not contain the name of Dhakku Raut nor any chit of paper regarding the family of Dhakku Raut was produced by the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below rightly found that Exts.3 and 4 were no help to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the mortgage deed 3 dated 02.06.1959 clearly showed that Dhakku Raut was alive till 1959. Furthermore, the learned courts below considered all the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and found that it clearly supported the genealogy of Sukan Raut in which Chameli was cited as daughter of Dhakku Raut and hence it was held that Chameli Devi was the daughter of Dhakku Raut, who died in the year 1960. So far the question as to whether Bhatani Devi widow of Bankey Raut was entitled to give the entire property of Plot No.2441 or she was entitled to give only to the extent of her share inherited from her husband, it was specifically held by the learned courts below that proviso to section 6 of Hindu Succession Act makes it clear that if Dhakku Raut died in the year 1960 leaving behind a daughter Chameli and a son Dukhi, who subsequently died issueless then Chameli shall inherit half of the said plot from her father by way of succession and the same would not go to the family of Bankey Raut by way of survivorship and hence it was held that Bhatani was not entitled to gift the property of Chameli to Raghunandan. Accordingly, it was held that Chameli Devi acquired right, title over only 04 decimals of Plot No.2441 which was the share of her father, whereas Raghunandan will get only those property through registered deed of gift of 1964 (Ext.6)) to the extent of 04 decimals of the said plot which Bhatani inherited from her husband Bankey. After perusing specific provision of law, the learned courts below rightly held that the plaintiff had got right, title and interest over the suit plot no.2441 only to the extent of share of 4 Raghunandan coming through Bhatani and Bankey in the property of Sukan Raut and not the entire property. The learned courts below also found that Raghunandan was a necessary party to the suit being the grandson of Sukan and the donee of Bhatani Devi and the suit was bad for defect of parties as Raghunandan who was also vendor of the plaintiff was not impleaded. In the aforesaid 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)