1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.35 of 2007 ----------- 1. Manu Devi, wife of Raj Kishore Rai 1(a)Naina Devi, wife of Devendra Rai 2. Dhani Ram Rai @ Ram Dhari Rai 3. Bijali Rai 4. Shivjee Rai Sls. No. 2 to 4 all sons of Jagdeo Rai, resident of village Madanpur, P.O. Rasalpur, P.S. Dumra, District Sitamarhi. …Defendants-appellants-appellants. Versus 1(a) Jasudia Devi 1(b) Gangia Devi. 2. Deep Narain Rai 3. Gajan Rai 2 & 3 sons of Ram Sundar Rai All residents of village Madanpur, P.O. Rasalpur, P.S. Dumra, District Sitamarhi. ….Plaintiffs-Defendants-Respondents Ist Party. 4. Ratan Kuer, wife of Maksudan Singh (deceased) 5. Mithilesh Devi 2nd wife of Ram Sharnagat Singh (deceased) 6. Sanjay Singh alias Chunu Singh, son of Ram Sarnayat Singh (deceased) 4 to 6 are residents of village Rasalpur, P.S. Dumra, District Sitamarhi. 6A. Smt. Shashi Devi, d/o latge Ram Sharnagat Singh, wife of Ram Tej Singh Mishra. 6B. Smt. Poonam Devi, d/o Sujas Singh, wife of Shankar Mishra, All 6A to 6B are resident of village Simri, P.O. and P.S. Jadu Patti, District Sitamarhi. 7. Mukesh Singh @ Munna, son of Ram Sharnagat Singh (deceased) Resident of village Rasalpur, P.S. Dumra, District Sitamarhi. 8. Bibha Devi, wife of Jitendra Singh, D/o Ram Sharnagat Singh (deceased), village Belahi, P.S. Runnisaidpur, Distt. Sitamarhi. 9. Munni Kumari, d/o Ram Sharnagat Singh (deceased ) Village Rasalpur, P.S. Dumra District Sitamarhi. 10. Mukesh Singh 11. Veena Devi 12. Ranjan Kumari 13. Pappi Kumari 10 to 13 all sons and daughter of Shail Kumari Devi, wife of Khush Nandan Singh (deceased), d/o Ram Sharnagat Singh (deceased), resident of village Tilak Tajpur @ Pota, P.S. Runnisaidpur, District Sitamarthi. …Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 2nd Parties. ------- For the Appellants : M/s Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate & Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. ------ 2 09/ 13.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 106 of 1988, which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents no.1 to 3 for declaration that the sale-deeds dated 27.08.1987 and 02.12.1987 executed by Ram Sujash Singh in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 were fraudulent, without consideration and on their basis the defendants did not acquire any right, title and interest and also for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and in case the plaintiffs are found to be dispossessed, a decree of recovery of possession and other ancillary reliefs including injunction were sought. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Additional Munsif, Sitamarhi (West), vide his judgment and decree dated 19.05.1990. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 21 of 1990( 16/ 2003 ), which was dismissed on contest by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-IV, Sitamarhi vide his judgment and decreed dated 30.11.2006. The said judgments and decree of both the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. It is not in dispute that the suit land was ancestral properties of the parties, but, according to the plaintiffs, a 3 partition took place in the year 1952 between all the co-sharers by metes and bounds, according to which the plaintiffs had right, title and interest over the suit land. 6. On the other hand, the defendants claimed that the suit properties were partitioned in the year 1971, according to which the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the suit land, rather it were the defendants, who owned the same and are in exclusive possession thereof. 7. Both the learned courts below have very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties, both oral and documentary, produced by the plaintiffs and the defendants, and came to the specific conclusion that the plaintiffs have been able to prove partition of 1952, which was acted upon and on the basis of which the plaintiffs had right, title and possession over the suit land. It was also found that the defendants by their evidence have failed to disprove the claim of the plaintiffs, which was based on valid materials. 8. It was also found by both the learned courts below that Title Suit No. 20 of 1962 (Ext.3) as well as Ladavi dated 26.02.1970 also supported the said partition and hence the plaintiffs were fully able to prove their right, title and possession over the suit land. Furthermore, when the transferors of the defendants had no right, title and interest in the suit properties, then it is quite apparent that the defendants could not legally acquire any right or title by the sale-deeds executed by Ram Sujash Singh in favour of defendants first party. 4 9. The said findings are concurrent findings with regard to specific facts fully proved by the plaintiffs by valid evidence and hence there is no occasion for this Court to interfere therewith under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Furthermore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of both 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. )