IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.408 of 2004 1.Rajesh Kumar 2. Dharmendra Kumar sons of Ram Darshan Ram 3. Rakesh Kumar sons of Ram Darshan Ram 4. Bindoo Devi W/o Ram Darshan Ram 5. Ram Darshan Ram son of Nathuni Hazra All residents of Kunjarpatti @ Telliapatti, P.S. Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. …….Defendant 1st party/appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Ram Gopal Jain son of Jai Dayal Jain, resident of Motihari. Henery Bazar, P.S. Motihari Town, District- East Champaran. ……..Plaintiff/Respondent 1st Party/Respondent 2. Geeta Devi wife of Bajarang Lall, resident of village and P.O. and P.S. Khagaria, District-Khagaria. …….Defendant 2nd party/Respondent 2nd Party/Respondent. ----------- 10/ 03.12.2008 This second appeal has already been dismissed as against the heirs of deceased respondent no.2 for non-compliance of court’s order dated 19.07.2005, but the said dismissal has not made the entire appeal incompetent. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant 1st party-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out Title Suit No. 145 of 1994, which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent-respondent 1st party for declaration that four registered deeds of gift dated 11.10.1985 said to have been executed by Jokha Devi in favour of the defendant nos.1 to 4 were null and void and also for confirmation of plaintiff’s possession over the suit lands originally belonging to Jokha Devi and also for 2 recovery of possession of the suit house and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Sadar Motihari vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.2000 whereafter defendant 1st party filed Title Appeal No.32 of 2000 (50/01), which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge-2, Motihari vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. After considering the arguments as well as the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below it is quite apparent that the suit property belonged to the husband of Jokha Devi after whose death it devolved upon Jokha Devi. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Jokha Devi, brother of her husband who was the predecessor of the plaintiff inherited the suit properties, whereafter the plaintiff inherited the same. On the other hand, the claim of the defendants is that the said Jokha Devi transferred the said property to the defendants by four registered sale deeds of gift all dated 11.10.1985 on the basis of which they are continuing in possession of the suit premises. The learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the definite and concurrent findings that it was specific case of the plaintiff that Jokha Devi neither executed alleged deeds of gift nor she presented sale deed before the Registrar for their registration and the defendants failed to produce 3 the said registered deeds and filed only the certified copies of those deeds claiming that the said original documents were lost by them but they could not prove by any material that the said original documents were lost. It was also found that DW.1, who was one of the alleged donees, very clearly stated that she cannot tell the year of the gift nor she knows as to which land was gifted to her and to her sons by Jokha Devi. It was also found that DW.2 has stated that Jokha Devi herself used to look after the cultivation of the properties and she acted as the owner till her death. It was also found that Ext.1 series were the deeds executed by Jokha Devi and Radha Krishna Jain, which clearly suggested that no such deeds of gift were ever acted upon and the said inference was corroborated by other evidence also which clearly showed that the alleged deeds of gift were never acted upon. So far the claim of defendants that Jokha Devi had adopted Bindoo Devi is concerned, the learned court of appeal below specifically found that neither there was any document nor there was any witness to the alleged adoption on the day of Basantpanchami 1965 which clearly falsifies the story of adoption. 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)