IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.189 of 2000 1. Mostt. Gita Devi, widow of late Chander Pandit 2. Sunita Devi, wife of Sri Narayan Pandit and daughter of late Chander Pandit, resident of Mohalla Bari Khanjapur, P.S. Barari, District Bhagalpur …. Defendants-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1. Saligram Pandit, son of Shibu Pandit 2. Mostt. Parbati, widow of late Biswanth Pandit 3. Srimati Kalwati, wife of Suka Lal Pandit Respondent no.1 resident of Mohalla Barikhanjarpur, Nandlal Mishra lane, P.S. Barari, District Bhagalpur. Respondents No.2 and 3 residents of Mohalla Sahibganj Kajrotia, P.S. Sahebganj, District Dumka. -Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents 1st Parties 4. Administrator, Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation Defendant-Respondent-Respondent-2nd Party. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Shantanu Kumar Sharma,Advocate For the Respondents: None. ------- 07/ 27.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 188 of 1976, which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents first set for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit land and also for declaration that orders dated 27.02.1975 and 15.06.1976 passed by the Municipal authorities in A.D. Case No. 935 of 1974-75 and A.D. Case No.451 of 1975-76, respectively, were wrong, illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge VII, Bhagalpur, vide his - 2 - judgment and decree dated 29.08.1980. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants-appellants filed Title Appeal No. 80 of 1980, which was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Bhagalpur, vide his judgment and decree dated 07.02.2000. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the pleadings and evidence of both parties have been fully considered, whereafter it was held that sons of Heera Pandit had partitioned the suit land amongst themselves amicably prior to the year 1926. It was also held that the suit land became self acquired property of late Dhathuri Pandit on his purchase through Ext.2/a and it was fully proved by evidences including the deed of gift and deposition of Panches including P.Ws. 5 and 7 that the said Dhathuri Pandit had executed a deed of gift with respect to the suit land in favour of his daughter on 06.12.1958, whereafter she became owner and came in possession of the suit land. Thus, the learned courts below came to the conclusion that Dhathuri Pandit had died in the year 1958, which was proved by the evidences also. 6. In these circumstances, the learned courts below rightly held that valid title passed to the transferee vide Exts.2 and 2/a and the said documents were neither void nor illegal. It is apparent that the claim of the defendant-appellants that the heirs of Dhathuri Pandit - 3 - were living in the suit land as tenants is falsified by their admissions that Dhathuri Pandit was living in the suit house along with his other brothers in jointness. Hence, the said findings of the learned courts below are found to be legal and proper based on evidences both documentary and oral. 7. In the said 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.