IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.14 of 2009 1. BIR BAHADUR SINGH, SON OF LATE BHIRGUN SINGH. 2. JAI PRAKASH SINGH, SON OF BIR BAHADUR SINGH. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-SINGAHI, P.O. SIDHAO, POLICE STATION-LAUKARIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. ................................................................................................................. .......DEFENDANT NO.1, 3………APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS. 3. SHYAM SINGH, SON OF BIR BAHADUR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SINGAHI, P.O. SIDHAO, POLICE STATION- LAUKARIA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ………………………..DEFENDANT NO.2/RESPONDENT 2ND PARTY/APPELLANT. Versus 1. PARSHURAM SINGH, SON OF LATE BHIRGUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHAHU, P.O. JHANKAUL, P.S. TURAPATTI, DISTRICT-KUSHINAGAR, (UTTARPRADESH), AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SINGAHI, P.O. SIDHAO, P.S. LAUKARIA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ……………………………PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT IST SET. 2. NAGENDRA PASWAN, SON OF SAGAR PASWAN. 3. RAJ KISHORE @ RAJ KISHORE CHAHDUARY, SON OF DUKHANTI CHAUDHARY. BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BALUA, P.S. LAUKARIA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ……………..DEFENDANT NO.4 & 5/RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3. ……………………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 6. 22.11.2010. Heard Mr. B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2008 passed in Title Appeal No.5 of 2006 by the District Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, whereby he has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 2 judgment and decree dated 21.1.2006 passed in Title Suit No.70 of 2001 by the Sub Judge-II, Bagaha, District-West Champaran, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Plaintiff brought Title Suit No.70 of 2001 for declaration that the three sale deeds dated 7.8.2001 purported to be executed by the plaintiff in the name of defendant nos.2 and 3 are forged, fabricated, without consideration and void ab initio and not at all executed by the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit. The judgment and decree of the trial court have been challenged by filing Title Appeal No.5 of 2006. However, the same has also been dismissed. The plaintiff’s case is that the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 are full brothers. However, they are separate by amicable partition since long followed by execution of a registered deed of partition dated 10.3.1986. The plaintiff claims that the defendant no.1 dishonestly got prepared the sale deeds of the schedule of the plaintiff in the name of his sons, who are defendant nos.2 and 3 in the present suit and, thus, has denied the execution of the sale deeds, whereas defendants claimed that the sale deeds are valid and genuine. The appellate court while considering this issue has 3 discussed that the aforesaid sale deeds have been examined by a Finger Print and Handwriting Expert, namely, Radha Krishna Sahay, who has submitted his report, which has been brought on record as Ext.2 and he has also been examined as P.W.4. The report shows that the thumb impressions, marked as Exts.D/1 to D/3, as well as the signatures of Parshuram Singh on the aforesaid three sale deeds are not genuine. No objection was filed against the said report of the expert. The expert was also examined as P.W.4 and was also cross examined in detail, however, he withstood the same. During the trial, there has been no endeavour on the part of the defendants to get the thumb impression and the signature on the sale deeds examined by any other expert. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellate court has affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and has dismissed the appeal. In the opinion of this court, the appellants could not point out any error committed by the courts below giving rise to a substantial question of law. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)