IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.166 of 2006 1. Sharda Devi, wife of Ram Pukar Singh, resident of village Darbhanga, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad. 2. Lakhwani Devi, wife of Sheopujan Singh, resident of village Bisrampur, P.S. Imamganj, District Gaya. 3. Bhim Singh, son of Siddhi Singh, resident of village Pirthu, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad. …Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Parvati Devi, wife of late Badri Narayan Singh, resident of village Sono-dih, P.O. + P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad. 2. Lalan Singh, son of late Badri Narayan Singh, Sonadih, P.O. + P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad. 3. Smt. Nirmala Devi, w/o Shri Navin Singh, resident of village Marwaniya, P.O. Ramana, P.S. Garwa (Palamu), District Palamu 4. Bakunth Singh, son of Basudeo Singh (deceased), resident of village Mawa Bigha, P.S. Madanpur, District Aurangabad. 5. Sita Ram Singh, son of Sadhu Singh (deceased),. resident of village Regnia, P.S. Amas, District Gaya. …Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the appellants : M/s Surendra Kumar and Dudheshwar Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: None. ---------- 07/ 13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgment and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.306 of 1989 (37/1997), which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and also for a declaration that order dated 11.08.1989 passed in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Executive Magistrate was illegal and also for partition of Schedule `A’ properties to the extent of moiety share. - 2 - 4. The said title suit was decreed on contest against defendant no.1 and ex parte against defendant nos. 2 to 4 by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Aurangabad, vide his judgment and decree dated 03.09.1998. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 41 of 1998 (56/2005), which was dismissed with cost by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.5, Aurangabad, vide his judgment and decree dated 15.04.2006 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below have considered the arguments and issues raised by learned counsel for both the parties and after fully appreciating the pleadings and evidence of the parties have come to the conclusion that the suit was not a partition suit between the members of a joint Hindu family because both the parties, who are co-vendees of Deorati Kuar, are strangers to each other and hence the instant suit was for getting 8 annas share in the suit properties. 6. So far the point raised by learned counsel for the appellants with regard to non-framing of an issue by the trial court with regard to the title of the parties is concerned, the learned court of appeal below relied upon the provision of Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which specifically lays down that in suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless - 3 - the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. Hence the learned court of appeal below found that while considering the other issues, the question of title and possession also had been considered and decided and hence the plea of learned counsel about non-framing of the issues was redundant and not tenable. 7. So far the reference to section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is concerned, it is quite apparent that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. In this connection, the learned court of appeal below has rightly held that the said section is retrospective in effect. So far other question regarding inadequacy of consideration money for the registered sale-deed (Ext.3) under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 is concerned, the learned court of appeal below has also rightly held that it cannot be a ground for challenging the deed by a third party and that when the stamp duty is paid on market value, title passes to the vendee. Furthermore, it is for the authority concerned to check appropriate stamp and no such objection having been raised by the authority concerned, the said point raised by the defendants is not tenable. 8. The learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings of both the parties as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the specific conclusion that plaintiffs- respondents had unquestionably proved the title and possession of - 4 - Badri Narain Singh and his present heirs (plaintiffs), whereas, on the other hand, the defendants-appellants, who seek to displace the natural succession of Deorati Devi to the suit property, by alleging that Chandra Devi had succeeded, could not prove the same by any valid and reliable evidence and failed to discharge the burden of proof in this regard. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decreed 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )