IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.156 of 2005 Kapileshwar Singh son of Late Chhathu Singh resident of village Morsand , Tole Gaighat, P.S. Runni Saidpur District. Sitamarhi Plaintiff- Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Ram Shresth Singh son of Late Rajdeo Singh 2. Ram Babu Singh son of Late Rajdeo Singh Defendants- Respondent Ist Party – Respondent Ist Party 3. Kapildeo Singh son of Late Manruchan Singh Defendants- Respondent 2nd Party – Respondent 2nd Party All resident of village Morsand , Tole Gaighat, P.S. Runni Saidpur District. Sitamarhi Defendants- Respondents-Respondents ---------------- For the appellant: Mr V. R. P. Singh, Advocate Mr Lavekush Kumar, Advocate For the respondents: None ----------- 04 15.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.17 of 1986 which was filed by the appellant for declaration that registered deed of gift dated 18.01.1982 executed by the original plaintiff Raj Kishore Singh in favour of Rajdev Singh deceased father of defendant first party was forged and fabricated and not executed by the said donor and also for declaring that the said document was virtually null and void and be cancelled and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Sitamarhi Sadar vide his judgment and decree dated 30.04.1994. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal no.15 of 1994 ( 52/2003) which was also - 2 - dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge II, Sitamarhi, vide his judgment and decree dated 10.03.2005. 5. After hearing the arguments and after perusing the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it transpires that both the learned courts below considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail and came to the specific conclusions that LTI available on the plaint was given by the original plaintiff Late Raj Kishore Singh and that the deed of gift (Exhibit F) together with deed of cancellation (Exhibit C) demolished the case of the plaintiff that Late Raj Kishore Singh was not knowing the contents of the deed of gift on the date on which it was registered. Both the courts below on the basis of documentary and oral evidence came to the conclusion that Late Rajdeo Singh had perfect right, title and interest in the land mentioned in the deed of gift and the testimony of Kapileshwar Singh the present plaintiff coupled with deed of gift dated 18.01.1982 and deed of cancellation dated 12.06.1985 substantiated the stand taken on behalf of the defendants. The learned courts below also found that Kapileshwar Singh namely the subsequent plaintiff wanted to grab the land of Late Raj Kishore Singh separately and independently of his legal heirs who had not even been impleaded in the suit and hence the suit suffered from the defect of non-joinder of the necessary party. 6. So far question of possession is concerned, both the learned the courts below did not find the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land although onus was squarely upon the plaintiff to prove his possession. - 3 - 7. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of 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. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid