IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.269 of 2010 Sheodhari Kumari Versus Most.Manturna Kuar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 5 21-12-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title based upon the sale deed obtained from the descendant of Gharbharan Kurmi. It is not in dispute that the property belonged to the family of Rang Lal who had three sons, Gaul Kurmi, Gharbharan Kurmi and Deep Kurmi, out of whom Deep Kurmi died unmarried and issueless. It is the case of the plaintiff that Gaul Kurmi had one daughter Ramratia, who also died and after her death the branch of Gaul Kurmi became extinct and ultimately the branch of Gharbharan Kurmi came to inherit the entire property of Gaul Kurmi. Contesting this stand of the plaintiff, the defendants, who claimed title from the descendants of Basmatia and Tetri, had asserted that Gaul Kurmi had, in fact; three daughters , Basmatia and Tetri the remaining two daughters, besides Ramratia. Therefore, in view of the rival contentions of the parties, the core issue in the suit was as to the existence of Basmatia and Tetri as daughters of Gaul Kurmi. Besides, the another issue which is also apparent , is whether Basmatia and Tetri, even if accepted to be the daughters of Gaul Kurmi, could have inherited the property of Gaul Kurmi after his death. Both the courts below have come to the finding that Basmatia and Tetri were not the daughters of Gaul Kurmi. Besides 2 that, another finding of fact has also been recorded that Gaul Kurmi died prior to 1930. The suit was decreed and the appeal was dismissed primarily on these two basic findings. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously submitted that both the courts below have wrongly placed the burden of proof upon the defendant to establish the existence of two more daughters, namely, Basmatia and Tetri of Gaul Kurmi and this shifting of burden of proof has vitiated the impugned judgments. It has been urged by the learned counsel that it was for the plaintiffs to establish that Basmatia and Tetri were not the daughters of Gaul Kurmi when apparently the sale deed of the defendant stands prior to the date of the sale deed of the plaintiffs. After perusing the impugned judgments and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, it is clear that the plaintiffs have claimed declaration of their title on the basis of the sale deed executed in their favour by the descendant of Gharbharan Kurmi with the assertion that after the extinction of the branches of his two brothers, namely, Gaul Kurmi and Deep Kurmi, it was Gharbharan who became entitled to the entire property of the family of Rang Lal. The defendants, who wanted the court to believe in existence of facts, which would have non- suited the plaintiff, had the burden to prove the existence of those facts. In view of the findings by both the courts below that Gaul Kurmi died prior to 1931 by placing reliance on Ext.B/2, the existence of Basmatia and Tetri, even if accepted, could not 3 improve the case of the defendants. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on evidence and there does not appear to be any perversity in the impugned judgments. In this view of the matter, there is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)