IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.72 of 2001 Zeaur Rahman @ Zanaur Rahman, Son of Khalilur Rahman @ Khalilur Rahman, R/o Village- Chakia, P.O.- Ratanpur, P.S.- Arrah Muffasil, P.O.- Ratanpur, District-Bhojpur. ----(Defendant-Respondent)-Appellant. Versus 1.Jagdeep Narain Singh, Son of Late Jagarnath Singh. 2. Shatrughan Prasad Singh. 3.Dhanjay Kumar Singh. Both Sons of Jagdeep Narain Singh. Nos. 1 -3 residents of Village-Mausha Pandey Bagh, P.S.- Arrah, District- Bhojpur. 4. Kalawati Devi, Wife of Surendra Nath Singh. 5. Manorma Devi, W/o Satyendra Kumar Singh. Nos. 4-5 residents of Village- M.P.Bagh, P.S.- Ara, District-Bhojpur. 6.Kanti Singh, W/o Arun Kumar Singh, R/o Mohalla- Nawada, P.S.- Ara, District-Bhojpur. 7.Malti Devi, W/o Amrendra Kumar Singh. R/o at and P.S.-Mughalsarai, District-Mughalsarai, Uttar Pradesh.----(Plaintiffs-Appellants)-Respondents Ist Set. 8.Most. Phuleshwara Kuer, W/o Rameshwar Singh @ Bhadai Singh. 9.Sri Krishna Singh. 10.Nil Baran Singh. 11.Shrikant Singh. Sons of Rameshwar Singh @ Bhadai Singh. Nos.8-10 residents of Mauza Rampur, P.O.- Arrah, P.S.- Arrah Muffasil, District-Bhojpur. 2 12. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, W/o Ram Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Chahli, P. S.-Ailivia Ramganj, District- Gonda(U.P.) 13. Smt. Chhatti Devi, W/o Sachita Singh, R/o Village-Jamalpur, P.S.-Koelwar, District- Bhojpur. 14.Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o Sakaldev Singh, R/o Village- Muhammadpur, P.O.- Karisath, District- Bhojpur. 15. Smt. Ramla Devi, W/o Sukhdeo Singh, R/o Village- Muhammadpur, P.O.- Karisath, District- Bhojpur. 16.Smt. Sonajhari Devi, W/o Umesh Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Jamalpur,P.S.- Koelwar, District-Bhojpur. ---(Defendants-Respondents)-Respondents 2nd Set. ----------- . 10. 18.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2000 passed in Title Appeal No. 32/1995 by 4th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur at Ara reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.05.1995 passed by Sub Judge II, Ara in Title Suit No. 86 of 1987. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and further relief was that the decree was passed in Title Suit No. 16 of 1980 by the Court of Additional Sub Judge IV, Ara was not binding 3 upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed the suit land on the basis of purchase by registered sale deed from the widow and sons of Rameshwar Singh who was the admitted owner of the suit land and has claimed to have got her name mutated after coming in possession of the same and constructing a house there upon. However the defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the admitted owner Rameshwar Singh had mortgaged (Rehan Dakhli)the suit land on 22.12.1973 to the defendant no.1 who later on filed Title Suit No. 16/80 for recovery of the mortgage money and in that suit the plaintiff was also impleaded as a party. It is the case of the defendant that the Title Suit No.16/80 ultimately ended in a compromise decree and the said decree would be binding upon the plaintiff who cannot assert the title thereafter by filing this suit. The intervener defendants, who are daughters of the deceased Rameshwar Singh have also challenged the claim of title of the plaintiff on the ground that they being also the heirs of Rameshwar Singh, have got title and possession in the land alongwith the sons and widow of Rameshwar Singh who could not have alone transferred 4 valid title to the plaintiff in absence of the intervener defendants joining them in the sale deed. The trial court has come to invalidate the sale deed of the plaintiff firstly on the ground that after execution of the mortgage deed, the vendor could not have sold the land to the plaintiff keeping the rehan money in ‘Amanat’(trust)and secondly the sale deed is invalid in absence of the daughters of Rameshwar Singh joining the same as vendor. The trial court has further held that the compromise decree in Title Suit No.16/80 would be binding upon the plaintiff who was admittedly a party to the suit. The trial court also refused to grant exemption to the plaintiff from the payment of court fee on the basis of the certificate granted to her by the Circle Officer and had also dismissed the suit as not maintainable on that score. The appellate court below considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the parties and while considering the submissions of the intervener defendants it has come to the specific finding that the share of the daughters (intervener defendants) would come to only 1/45th and the sale of suit land in favour of the plaintiff by the widow and sons of Rameshwar Singh deceased is 5 much within their (widow and sons) share which they were entitled to transfer. It has further been held that the intervener defendants never challenged the sale deeds nor filed any suit to carve out their share in the suit plot. Consequently, after upholding the validity of the sale deeds of the plaintiff, the appellate court has concluded that the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 16/80 between the defendant no.1 and the widow and sons of late Rameshwar Singh would not confer title to the defendant no.1 because on the date of the compromise, the widow and sons had been left with no title in the suit plot having earlier transferred the same to the plaintiff, and more so, when the plaintiff was not a party to the compromise . The appellate court below has also taken notice of the fact that the Title Suit No.16/80 was only with regard to the mortgage money and no property or declaration of title over a property was involved in that suit. Before the appellate court below it was stated on behalf of the appellant that the relevant certificate regarding exemption of court fee has been obtained by the plaintiff from the Legal Aid Committee as per the requirement of law and as such the question of payment of court fee did not arise. It 6 does not appear from the judgment that the said statement on behalf of the plaintiff had been controverted by the defendants. On the basis of aforesaid findings the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and has held that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal has submitted that in the trial court altogether eight issues were framed but the appellate court has not considered those issues and as such the judgment of the appellate court is vitiated. It has been further contended that the finding of the appellate court below with regard to the sale deeds of the plaintiff is not correct and is not supported by the evidence on record. Another contention of the learned counsel is that since the court fee had not been paid by the plaintiff in the suit itself which was also dismissed on that score, the appellate court should not have entertained the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree under appeal. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the judgments of the courts below it appears that the necessary certificate with regard 7 to exemption from payment of court fee had been obtained by the plaintiff and had been produced before the appellate court which had not been controverted by the defendants and the objection in this regard appears to have been abandoned by them. As such there is no force in the submission on behalf of the appellant on this issue. Further, it is not required that the appellate court must separately consider each and every issue raised before the trial court rather in view of the provision of Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C., the appellate court is required to frame the points for determination in view of the rival contentions of the parties in appeal before it. The appellate court, as the impugned judgment reveals, has framed the points for determination after considering the rival contentions of the parties and in fact those points are comprehensive enough to cover the material issues arising between the parties. Further, nothing could be pointed out on behalf of the appellant as to how the conclusion of the appellate court below with regard to the sale deeds is erroneous or suffers from the vice of non-consideration of evidence or relevant law applicable to the facts of the case. Once having upheld the validity of the sale deeds dated 18.1.1978 in favour of 8 the plaintiff, which sale deeds had remained unchallenged throughout, the appellate court below has rightly held that the subsequent compromise by the vendor in Title Suit No. 16/80 will not affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. No legal infirmity in the judgment of the appellate court below, thus, could be pointed out on behalf of the appellant. As such no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)