IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.277 of 2004 1. Amna Khatoon wife of late Samiullah Khan. 2. Md. Habbibullah Khan. 3. Ruzauddin Khan. 4. Rahimuddin Khan. 5. Atauddin Khan. 6. Ataullah Khan. All 2 to 6 are son of late Samiullah Khan. 7. Ajimuddin Khan. 8. Kayamuddin Khan. Appellant Nos. 7 to 8 are minor sons of late Samiullah Khan, under the guardianship of their mother Amana Khatoon, who has no advance interest to that of the minor,. All are residents of Village-Sonbarsa, Pargana-Bara, P.S.- Maharajganj at present P.S.-Gautam Budh Nagar, P.O.- Sonbarsa, District-Siwan. .............Appellants Versus 1. Rafiuddin Khan son of late Manshi Khan. 2. Kamaluddin Khan son of late Manshi Khan. 3. Jamshed Khan son of late Ainul Khan. 4. Ashkari Khatun minor daughter of Jamshed Khan through Jamshed Khan father guardian. 5. Sahida Khatun minor daughter of Jamshed Khan through Jamshed Khan father guardian. 6. Bibi Anwari wife of Narsul Haeuk Khan @ Nasrul Haquek Khan (deceased). 7. Bibi Saibdun daughter of Tej Mohammad Khan (deceased.). 8. Makhan Khan. 9. Azam Ali Khan. 10. Faiyaz Ali Khan. 11. Sona Khan. Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 are Minor sons of Basaruddin Khan (decd) through Mt. Roz Beghum, mother guardian. 12. Bibi Smatunnissa. 13. Bibi Jahanara. Respondent Nos. 12 and 13 are daughter (minor) Nasaruddin Khan, through Roz Beghum mother guardian. 14. Seraj Khan son of Naimuddin Khan. 15. Meraj Khan son of Naimuddin Khan. 16. Hakim Khan son of Naimuddin Khan. 17. Nazmuddin Khan son of Naimuddin Khan. 18. Janiuddin Khan son of Naimuddin Khan. 19. Laulan Nehar daughter of Naimuddin (deceased). 2 20. Noor Behar. 21. Tabassum. 22. Tarannum. Respondent Nos. 20 and 21 are minor daughters of Naimuddin Khan through Meraz Khan brother guardian. 23. Khurshed Khan. 24. Rokhsar Khan. Respondents Nos. 23 and 24 are sons of Ahmad Khan died Hasdusul. 25. Badrunnisa. 26. Sadru Nissa. 27. Madina Khatun. 28. Ladu Khatun. 29. Eohia Khatun . Respondents Nos. 23 to 29 are daughters of late Ahmad Khan and Hadusul. 30. Samsul Hoda Khan son of late Kamruddin Khan. 31. Bibi Tera daughter of Imam Hassan Khan alias Karim Hussain. 32. Nababul Haque son of Gairul. 33. Imambul Haque son of Gairul. 34. Ajiju Nisha. 35. Azibun Nisha. Respondents Nos. 34 and 35 are daughters of late Gairul. 36. Rakibun Nisha daughter of late Gairul. 37. Karikuo Nisha daughter of late Gairul. All of Village and P.O.-Sonbarsa, Pergana Bara P.S. G.B. Nagar, District-Siwan. 38. Tarikun daughter of Kamruddin. 39. Pyare Khan son of late Abdul Beri Khan. 40. Raziz Khan son of late Chhote Khan. 40. A. Abdul Washib Khan son of late Chhote Khan. 41. Tamal Khan minor son of Abdul Bari through Bibi Rajisun mother guardian. 42. Bibi Rozisun wife of late Abdul Bari Khan. 43. Noor Jannat. 44. Sahin Parvin. 45. Hussain Tera. 46. Rehana. 47. Saham Parvin. Respondent Nos. 43 to 47 are daughters of late Abdul Bari Khan. 48. Rabia Khatun daughter of Ishraiyal Khan (decd.). 49. Umul Fatma wife of Ashrauddin Khan (decd). 50. Rahmatunnisa. 51. Bibi Sahida. 52. Abda Khatun. 53. Sajida Khatun. 3 Respondent Nos. 50 to 53 are daughters of Astukkin Khan (deceased). 54. Raj Beghum wife of Barisurrin Khan. All at present Village-Sonbarsa, P.O.-Sonbarsa, Pethana Bara, P.S.-Gautam Budha Nagar, District-Siwan. ...............(Defendants). ..............Respondents/Respondents. ----------- 19 25.08.2011 Heard learned counsel Mrs. Mallika Mazumdar, appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17th July, 2004, passed by IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan in Title Appeal No. 107 of 1994, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19th September, 1994, passed by Sub-Judge VIth, Siwan in Title Suit No. 218 of 1983. The suit has been filed for partition of the share as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and for delivery of possession over the same to him through the process of the Court. On the basis of genealogy (mentioned in Paragraph no. 2 of the Appellate Court’s judgment), the plaintiff has come out with the case that the suit land originally belonged to Imamuddin Khan, whose wife was Bibi Anaran. The other relevant part of the genealogy is that Imamuddin Khan had a son Taj Mohammad and a daughter Bibi Ajijul Nisa besides other sons and daughters who are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The daughter Bibi Ajijul Nisa was married with Saheb Hussain and had a son Bashiruddin. The 4 plaintiff is the son-in-law of Bashiruddin. The plaintiff has come out with the case that Imamuddin Khan, the original owner, by oral ‘Hibba’ had given the suit land to his wife Bibi Anaran and put her in possession. Later on, Bibi Anaran had made a gift in the year 1951 to Bashiruddin and put him in possession. The plaintiff is claiming the suit land on the basis of a sale deed in the year 1978, executed by Bashiruddin in his favour. On the other hand, the contesting defendants, who are the widow and a daughter of Taj Mohammad had come out with the case that Imamuddin Khan, out of love and affection, had in the year 1922 gifted his property to Taj Mohammad and put him in possession with further request to him to give some land to Bibi Anaran for her maintenance, which was given by Taj Mohammad, but after the death of Bibi Anaran, the same returned back to Taj Mohammad. It is further case of the defendants that Taj Mohammad has executed a deed of ‘Baimokasha’ in the year 1944 in favour of his wife and she in her turn has executed gift deed in favour of her daughter. Thus, the case of the defendants is that the alleged gift by Bibi Anaran to Bashiruddin never became operative and he did not acquire any interest in the suit land which has remained the property of the defendants. The trial Court has considered the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them in support of their pleadings and had framed specific issue with regard to the 5 acquisition of title by the plaintiff over the suit land on the basis of the sale deed executed in his favour by Bashiruddin and has come to the finding that there is no evidence to establish the gift deed in favour of Bashiruddin and also to establish that such gift deed had ever been acted upon. It has also been held by the trial Court that Bibi Anaran or Bashiruddin had never been in possession over the suit land in their own right on the basis of the gift as claimed. The trial Court has also taken notice of the 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding between the plaintiff and the defendants wherein the possession had been decided in favour of the defendants. In appeal, the appellate Court considered in detail the submissions of the parties and on that basis has also analyzed evidence adduced by them and has recorded specific finding that the alleged gift deed by Bibi Anaran in favour of Bashiruddin had never been acted upon and had never conferred any title to Bashiruddin and on this finding, the appellate Court has further held that the plaintiff did not acquire any title on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour by Bashiruddin and has, thus, concurred with the findings of the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants has strenuously submitted that findings of both the Courts below are not valid and legal, and have been passed upon misappreciation of evidence. It has been submitted that there has been sufficient evidence on record including the admission by the 6 defendants themselves that Bibi Anaran was in possession of some land and on this basis, learned counsel has submitted that the case of the plaintiff is established. However, on perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is clear that both the Courts below have concurrently held on the basis of the evidence on record that the gift deed in favour of Bashiruddin had never been acted upon and Bashiruddin never acquired any title over the suit land on that basis. Further, the deed of Baimokasha dated 09.05.1944, which is admittedly earlier to the gift by Bibi Anaran in favour of Bashiruddin in the year 1951 with regard to the same property has never been challenged by the plaintiff. By the said deed of Baimokasha, Taj Mohammad had transferred the suit property in favour of his wife. Further, no specific case with regard to the misappreciation of evidence could be established. The disputed facts have been settled by concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Safik (V. Nath, J.)