IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.314 of 2004 MOST.JANKI DEVI Versus BHOLA SAO & ORS ----------- 4/ 15-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 24 of 1987 which was filed by the plaintiff/ appellant for declaration that the sale deed dated 19.09.1958 in the name of Mathura Sao was ferzi deed by which Mathura Sao did not acquire title over the lands in suit and that Tekni Devi was not entitled to any right or interest in the said land and also for declaration that the plaintiff acquired full right, title and interest in the suit property. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif by the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2001 which was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2001 which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge ( F.T.C. II), Jamui by judgment and decree dated 30.07. 2004. The said judgments and decree have been challenged by the plaintiff/ appellant in the instant second appeal. Learned courts below after considering the materials on record and pleadings of the parties came to the specific findings that the sale deed in question was executed by Tekni Devi and Janki Devi which was genuine and created title in favour of the defendants when the consideration amount was also received by the vendor. It was also found that the factum of Pamchayati as claimed by the plaintiff and the Panchnama are of no help to the plaintiff and even the rent receipts were not definitely the proof of possession under the different - 2 - provisions of law and hence the plaintiff failed to discharge her burden in proving her possession over the suit land. It was also found by the learned lower appellate court that the sale deed dated 5.10.1987 and 13.10.1987 executed by Mathura Sah in favour of Kishun Yadav was genuine, legal, operative and was executed after getting the consideration money. It was also held that the Title suit was brought in the year 1987 challenging the sale deed of 1958 and hence the suit was clearly barred by law of limitation when even absence of knowledge was neither pleaded or proved. In the 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 in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. B.Tiwary/ ( S. N. Hussain, J )