IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.47 of 2004 PARAG SINGH & ANR Versus BINDA DEVI & ORS ----------- 13/ 01.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 24.11.2003, by which learned 4th Additional District Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, dismissed Title Appeal No. 80/1998(37/2002) and confirmed judgment and decree dated 29.08.1998 of learned Subordinate Judge-VIII, East Champaran, Motihari decreeing Title Suit No. 103/1996(35/1998), which was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for setting aside two deeds of gift dated 14.-3.1983 purported to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 and also the sale-deed dated 14.03.1983 purported to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant no.5 on the ground that the same was forged, fabricated, inoperative and useless and also for declaration of title of the plaintiffs with respect to the properties covered by the aforesaid deeds and for injunction and other ancillary reliefs. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently raises a contention that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate that on the same date, various deeds were executed along with the deeds of gift in question executed by the same persons in favour of the same persons in the same registration office, but the learned courts below have upheld the other deeds and had only declared the deed of gift in question (Ext.B-1/1) as illegal, inoperative and not valid. - 2 - From the impugned judgments of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that they have considered the instant issue in detail and, thereafter, decided the matter on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and have found that the scribe of the deed himself deposed before the Court as D.W.11 and stated that he did not read over and explain the contents of the deed in question to the executant of the deed rather it was his assistant, who might have read over the same to the executant when he had gone to obtain the thumb impression, but the said assistant was not examined. The identifier, who was D.W.13, had also admitted that he had identified the executant in the office of the Registrar and he did not remember anything having happened before that. Thereafter, in his further deposition he had contradicted his own claim and the learned courts below have rightly observed that the said witness is apparently a liar . Furthermore, the learned courts below have found that there was no reliable material to show that the contents of the deed in question were read over and explained to the executant and that he signed the same after understanding the contents thereof. The learned courts below have also found that no reliable evidence had been brought on record to show that the said deed of gift was ever acted upon. Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that Ext. B-1/1 was neither executed as per law nor it even became operative and as such it was not a valid document. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not - 3 - find any substantial question of law in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )