IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.1 of 2007 Md.Sadique Versus Hakim Ansari ---------------------------------- 9 10-8-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22-9-2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Sitamarhi, in Title Appeal No. 64/2005/01 of 2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 7-10-2005 passed by Munsif, Pupri at Sitamarhi in T.S.No. 17/2003. Title Suit No. 17/2003 had been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Further relief was for declaration that the sale deed dated 18-5-2001 in favour of the defendant was forged, fabricated, illegal and without consideration. It appears that after service of summons the defendant appeared and filed his written statement in the suit, but thereafter he left appearing in the suit and did not adduce any evidence in support of his case, as made out in the written statement. 2 The learned Munsif, after considering the evidence on record, the appellate court has come to the finding that the sale deed dated 18-5-2001 in favour of the defendant was not a valid document and consequently declared the same to be illegal and void upholding the claim of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit was decreed. The defendant chose to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree and after considering the evidence on record, the appellate court has come to the finding that the sale deed dated 18-5-2001 in favour of the plaintiff has been rightly declared to be illegal and void document by the trial court. The appellate court has also recorded the finding that the defendant had knowingly left the suit unattended and had not placed any cogent reason or circumstances to justify his absence in the suit. Consequently, on the basis of these findings the appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the matter may be remanded back to the court below for giving chance to the defendant to contest the matter by leading evidence. After hearing the submission of the learned 3 counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments and decree of both the court below, it appears that no valid and reasonable ground exists for accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The issues arising in the suit have been concluded by concurrent findings of fact and there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)