IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.432 of 1994 1. Most. Kaushalya Devi 2. (i) Most. Ahilya Devi (ii) Rintu Kumar Singh (iii) Chandan Kumar 3. Arun Kumar Singh 4. Maya Devi 5. Nirmala Devi 6. Chinta Devi All residents of village Belwar, Pargana Narhan, P.O. Niktikala, P.S. Raghunathpur, District Saran (now Siwan). ….Heirs of Defendant no.1-appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Most Buchia Kuar, widow of late Ram Prasad Gupta 2. Manoj Sah, son of late Ram Prasad Gupta 3. Dhanraj Sah 4. Munna Sah Both sons of late Ram Prasad Gupta 5. Hanuman Prasad, son of Ram Chandra Prasad All residents of village Belwar, Pargana Narhan, P.O. Niktikala, P.S. Raghunathpur, District Saran (now Siwan). 6. Shakuntala Kumari, daughter of Ram Chandra Prasad and wife of Shri Ghan Shyam Prasad, resident of village Naya Bazar, Deoria, P.O. and P.S. Deoria District Deoria (U.P.) 7. (i) Gopal Sah Rauniar (ii) Anand Sah Rauniar (iii) Ashok Sah Rauniar All sons of late Sheo Shankar Prasad, C/o Mr. Anand Sah Rauniar, Advocate, Dumariganj Road, Pandey Bazar, At & Distt. Basti (UP). 8. Jatashankar Prasad, son of late Parmeshwar Prasad Resident of village Belwar, Pargana Narhan, P.O. Niktikala, P.S. Raghunathpur, District Saran (now Siwan). …Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents 9. Ram Kumar Ram, son of Radha Kishun Ram, resident of village Belwar, Pargana Narhan, P.O. Niktikala, P.S. Raghunathpur, District Saran (now Siwan). …Defendant no.2-Respondent-Respondent ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha No.1 and Mrs. Vineeta Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents: None. ----------- 14/ 11.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both 2 the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 78/1965 (76/1972), which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents 1st set for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The aforesaid title suit was decreed on contest by the learned 2nd Additional Munsif, Siwan, vide his judgment and decree dated 26.09.1972. The judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by defendant no.1 in Title Appeal No.223 of 1972, which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Siwan, vide his judgment and decree dated 28.06.1994. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below have considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail, whereafter they came to the specific finding that the claim of the defendants that the disputed plots were not included in the award because it was purchased out of the personal fund of Jaleshwar Singh, was disproved and was rejected because Clause 2 of the award (Ext.6) was very clear on that point. After considering the evidence of the parties, the learned courts below also came to the conclusion that the sale-deed (Ext.A) was not genuine and it was without payment of consideration money and was void. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that 3 the legal heir of Babulal Ram (D.W.1), defendant no.2, Radhakishun Prasad, in whose presence the memorandum had been executed, had come to support the memorandum as well as execution of memorandum by both Parmeshswar and Babulal Ram and, therefore, there was nothing to doubt about their signature on Ext.11, which was, accordingly, held to be the memorandum of partition relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. After full consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, it was held that the plaintiffs had got subsisting title in the suit land and they have also been continuing in possession of the suit properties. 7. 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 at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )