IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.533 of 1991 Mohan Pandit, son of Madho Pandit, resident of village Mohammadpur Tola Jai Mangala, P.S. K. Nagar, District Purnia. ….(Defendant No.2-appellant-appellant. Versus 1. Girija Devi, wife of Parmeshwar Pandit, resident of village Mahamadpur Tola Jai Mangala, P.S. K. Nagar, District Purnia …Plaintiff-Respondent -Respondent 1st Party 2. Dayabati Devi, widow of late Pattu Pandit, resident of village Mahmadpur Tola Jai Mangala, P.S. K. Nagar, District Purnia. …Defendant no.1-Respodndent-Respondent 2nd party. ------- For the appellant : M/s Arun Kumar Ambastha and Devendra Prasad Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents : None. ----------- 12/ 30.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendant no.2- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 38 of 1986 (237/1988), which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent- respondent 1st set for declaration that the sale-deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff dated 04.01.1986 was valid and the sale-deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 dated 15.01.1986 was inoperative and the deed of cancellation executed by defendant no.1 on 03.02.1986 could not set aside the sale- deed of the plaintiff and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned 2nd Additional Munsif, Purnea, vide his judgment and decree dated 06.07.1989. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, defendant no.2 filed Title Appeal No. 61 of 1989 - 2 - (31/1990), which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Purnea, vide his judgment and decree dated 20.07.1991. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it appears that both the learned courts below, after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, have come to a specific conclusion that the suit land belonged to defendant no.1. It was also found that the plaintiff purchased suit land from defendant no.1 after payment of consideration money and the sale-deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff was legal and valid. The learned courts below further found that the alleged deed of cancellation was not produced by any of the parties and after considering the evidence it was found that the said deed of cancellation was absolutely illegal and invalid. It was also held that since the sale-deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 was dated 15.01.1986 and the sale-deed by defendant no.1 with respect to the same land in favour of the plaintiff was of a much earlier date i.e. 04.01.1986, the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff was found to be legal and valid and the subsequent sale-deed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 was declared inoperative and ineffective . 6. In the afroresaid 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 - 3 - involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Coed of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )