IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.241 of 2007 ----------- Ram Sewak Sah, son of late Bikram Sah, resident of village Ambakala P.O. Ambakala, Piprahi, P.S. and District Sitamarhi. …Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant versus Smt. Girija Devi, wife of Laxman Sah, resident of village Ambakala, P.O. Ambakala, P.S. Piprahi, District Sitamarhi …Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. ------ For the appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ----- 09/ 14.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 15 of 1992, which was filed by the appellant for declaration that the registered deed of gift dated 08.05.1983 executed by Bikram Sah in favour of his daughter-in-law Smt. Girija Devi be declared null and void and for declaration of right, title and possession of the plaintiff over half share of the gifted land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Shivhar (Sitamarhi) vide his judgment and decree dated 27.08.1994. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal No. 33 of 1994 (13/2006), which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional 2 District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Shivhar (Sitamarhi) vide his judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant vehemently challenges the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below but 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 after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned courts below had come to a conclusion that the suit filed in the year 1992 challenging a registered deed of gift dated 08.05.1983 was miserably barred by law of limitation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he came to know about the aforesaid registered deed of gift when a list of documents was filed in Money Suit No. 09 of 1989, hence the suit filed in the year 1992 was within the time prescribed under the provision of section 59 of the Limitation Act. But the law is well- settled in this regard that the registration of a document is sufficient notice to all with regard to such document and hence legally limitation will be counted from the date of registration of the document dated 08.05.1983 and not from the date of its filing in the money suit. 7. Furthermore, the learned courts below after considering the evidence of the parties, both documentary and oral, came to the 3 conclusion that there were sufficient evidence, which clearly showed that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the execution of the said deed of gift by his father Bikram Sah, whereafter the donee also proved the fact of her possession over the suit and the Government of Bihar also recognized her as the raiyat over the said land and granted rent receipts in her favour, but inspite of that the plaintiff did not challenge the said registered deed of gift within the period prescribed under the law. 8. The learned courts below also found from the materials on record that the registered deed was presented before the Sub- Registrar, Shivhar after two attesting witnesses had signed the said document and they had also deposed in the suit stating that it was Bikrama Sah, who had gifted the suit land of his share to Girija Devi (defendant no.1), to which he was legally entitled and on the basis of which the donee, namely defendant no.1 acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. 9. 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. )