IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.44 of 2009 1. MAHENDRA SHARMA,SON OF BHULETEN MISHTRI. 2. CHANDRASHEKHAR BISHWAKARMA. 3. GOPAL BISHWAKARMA. 4. JANAK BISHWAKARMA. 5. AKHILESH BISHWAKARMA. APPELLANT NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE SONS OF MAHENDRA SHARMA. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE, POST OFFICE, POLICE STATION- MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. 6. RAMAULA DEVI, WIFE OF ISHWARI BISHWAKARMA. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BEL BAGHAR, POST OFFICE-SHARONA, POLICE STATION-BARACHATTI, DISTRICT-GAYA. 7. RAMELI DEVI, WIFE OF MAHENDRA BISHWAKARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RAJAN, POST OFFICE-SAGWALI, POLICE STATION-GURUA, DISTRICT-GAYA. 8. BASHANTI DEVI, WIFE OF SHIV PRASAD BISHWAKARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BILNOSANT,POST OFFICE,POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT –GAYA. 9. JAWANTI DEVI, WIFE OF PAPPU BISHWAKARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JAITHAR, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION-BARACHATTI, DISTRICT-GAYA. …………DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS. 1. NATHUNI SINGH, SON OF KULDEEP SINGH. 2. MOST. LAKHASIYA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE KEDAR NATH SINGH. 3. ARUNJAY SINGH. 4. DHANANJAY SINGH. 5. MIRTUNJAY SINGH. 6. SANJAY SINGH. 7. BIRANJAY SINGH, ALL ARE SONS OF LATE KEDAR NATH SINGH, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-MAJRATHI, POST OFFICE, POLICE STATION-MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. 2 8. MIRA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE KEDAR NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KARAZAWA, POLICE STATION-WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT-GAYA. 9.MEENA DEVI ,DAUGHTER OF LATE KEDAR NATH SINGH @ KEDAR SINGH,WIFE OF ARUNJAY SINGH ,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BELSAR ,POLICE STATION- DEV,DISTRICT-AURANGABAD …… ….. ……PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS For the Appellants: M/s S.S. Singh, Amarnath Jha, Kedar Yadav and Santosh Chandra Bhaskar, Advocates ----------- 6 28.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The defendants-appellants have preferred this appeal on being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Aurangabad, in Title Appeal No. 56/93/152/07, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1993 passed by the Munsif, Aurangabad, in Title Suit No. 26/89 has been affirmed. The plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration of their right, title and interest as well as for confirmation of their possession over the suit property and alternatively, if the plaintiffs are found out of possession from the suit lands during the pendency of the suit, then for a decree for restoration of the same. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Raghunandan 3 Kewani being the son of the recorded tenant Durga Kewani inherited the suit property after her death being her sole legal heir. The aforesaid Raghunandan Kewani died sometime after 1956 leaving behind his daughter Daulati Devi, who succeeded the suit property from her father. According to the claim of the plaintiff, the aforesaid Daulati Devi sold the suit land measuring 4 dcimals appertaining to plot no. 173 khata no. 56 of village and P.S. Madanpur in the District of Aurangabad in favour of the plaintiffs and put the plaintiffs in possession over the same. According to the plaintiffs Budhiya Devi did not have any right to execute sale deed with respect to the suit land and unregistered sale deed did not confer any title upon the transferee. In the above view of the matter, the sale deed was not legal. That apart, it is further case of the plaintiffs that Budhiya Devi was never married with Raghunandan Kewani. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant filed a mutation case before the Anchaladhikari, Madanpur for mutation of one decimal of land out of the aforesaid suit plot in favour of the original defendant Kaushalya Devi on account of the land having been purchased by her through a sale deed executed by 4 Laldhari Kewani in her favour. The Anchaladhikari passed the order in favour of the plaintiffs. However, in appeal the order of the Anchaladhikariwas reversed and mutation of one decimal of land was allowed in favour of the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed Appeal No. 68/80 before the Collector, Aurangabad. However, the order of the L.R.D.C. was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed. Seeing cloud upon their title, the plaintiffs thereafter filed the instant suit. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and stated that one Budhiya Devi wife of Teni Kewani had executed unregistered(Sada) sale deed with respect to the suit land measuring 4 decimals of land in favour of her son Dukhan and Laldhari Kewani. Out of the aforesaid Laldhari Kewani executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant with respect to one decimal of land. The defendants have also stated in their written statement that Daulati Devi was not the daughter of Raghunandan Kewani. The plaintiffs got their deed executed by a fictitious lady and that they never came in possession over 5 the suit land and have got no valid right or title. The trial court after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record held that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that Daulati Devi was the daughter of Raghunandan Kewani and, as such, she was competent, after inheriting the suit land from her father after his death, to execute the sale deed. On the other hand, it has been held that the defendants could not prove that Budhiya Devi remarried Raghunandan Kewani and through the Sada sale deed she had transferred the property in favour of her sons, one of being the vendor of the defendants. The suit was decreed and the plaintiffs’ right and title have been declared and possession has been confirmed. The judgment and decree was challenged in the appellate court by the defendants. However, the appellate court also upheld the findings recorded by the trial court and confirmed the decree. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence led on behalf of the defendants in proper perspective. Further, it has been urged that the defendants 6 have been able to prove that Budhiya Devi remarried Raghunandan Kewani and transferred the property inherited from Raghunandan Kewani in favour of her sons and one of the sons transferred once decimal of such land in favour of the defendants. I do not find any substance in the submission raised on behalf of the appellants. Both the courts have recorded concurrent findings that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that Daulatia Devi was daughter of Raghunandan Kewani. It has been noticed by the courts below that the plaintiffs have examined the daughter Daulatia Devi as P.W. 5, who has stated in her evidence that she is daughter of Raghunandan Kewani and she has executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. That apart, one Udit Singh was also examined, who has stated that he knew both the parties and had seen Raghunandan Kewani. He has also stated that he had seen Daulatia Devi as his sole heir. On the other hand, the defendant, Kaushalya Devi, even could not examine herself or her vendor. Thus, the story set up by the plaintiffs was believed, whereas the story set up by the defendants was discarded. 7 Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any error in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below which may lead any substantial question of law. As a result, this appeal fails and, is, accordingly, dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)