IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.398 of 2004 1.MADHU RAI 2.Akaloo Rai 3.Bikau Rai All sons of late Ramd Lekhu Rai, resident of village Jagdishpur, Kharsar, P.S. Kalyanpur, Dist. Samastipur ---Plaintiffs..Appellants—Appellants. Versus SMT.MOHNI DEVI wife of Jogi Rai, resident of village Musapur P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur —Defendant—Respondent-respondent. ----------- For the Appellants :Mr.Dhirendra Kumar(Munna),Advocate ----- 5. 08.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2.This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decrees of both the learned courts below. 3.The matter arises out of Title Suit no. 120/86 which was filed by the plaintiffs- appellants for declaration that the deed of gift dated 30.11.1983 executed by the mother of the plaintiffs in favour of their sisters, namely, the defendants, was illegal and void and the same be cancelled and for other ancillary reliefs. 4.The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif-I, Samastipur by judgment and decree dated 22.6.1993. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs in title appeal no. 46 of 1993 but the said title appeal was also 2 dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC III, Samastipur by his judgment and decree dated 24.9.2004. The instant second appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 5.The learned courts below after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the suit property was not the self acquisition of the plaintiffs rather it was purchased by the joint family and, hence, it was joint family property and the plaintiff was karta of the family after the death of his father and, hence, the property in question was recorded in the joint name and receipts were also issued jointly. It was also held that the plaintiffs failed to prove any illegality in the deed of gift and the said deed of gift dated 30.11.1983 executed by the mother of the plaintiffs in favour of the sisters of the plaintiffs was legal and valid and the mother of the plaintiffs was fully entitled to execute the same. 3 6.The aforesaid issues are covered by findings of fact and this Court does not find any illegality in the said findings and furthermore no substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C. (S.N.Hussain,J.) spal/