IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.26 of 2008 1 (i) Ram Sakhi Devi daughter of late Mahendra Yadav 1 (ii) Sahdeo Yadav son of late Mahendra Yadav 1 (iii) Hari Devo Yadav son of late Mahendra Yadav 1 (iv) Kapil Deo Yadav son of late Mahendra Yadav 1 (v) Hukum Deo Yadav son of late Mahendra Yadav 2. Upendra Yadav son of late Sarjug Yadav, residents of village Ranipur, P.S.Sadar, District Darbhanga. …….Defendants 1st party-Appellants-Appellants Versus 1(a) Shyam Lal Yadav son of late Laxmi Narayan Yadav. 1(b) Ghanshyam Yadav son of late Laxmi Narayan Yadav 1(c ) Shokala Devi 1(d) Kiran Devi Both daughters of late Laxmi Narayan Yadav All residents of village Ranipur, P.S. L.N.M. University, District Darbhanga. ….. heirs of Plaintiff-Respondents-Respondents 1st set. 2. Marni Devi W/o Ram Chandra Yadav Resident of village Ranipur, P.S. Sadar, District Darbhanga. …..Defendant 2nd party-Respondent 2nd party-Respondent 2nd set. For the appellants : Mr. Ram Bali Jha, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ----------- 07/ 11.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants 1st party-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.73 of 1993 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents 1st set for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit land and also a direction to defendants 1st party to remove structures thereon and deliver vacant possession of the suit land to the original plaintiff failing which recovery was to be made 2 through the process of the court as well as for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by learned Munsif-I, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 11.12.2002. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court defendants 1st party filed Title Appeal No.04 of 2003 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.IV, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 08.10.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed by defendants 1st party. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, but from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have passed their aforesaid judgments and decree after considering the entire pleadings and evidence of the parties as well as the specific provisions of law applicable to the case. 6. The learned courts below have come to the conclusion that in Ext.B the name of the husband of Bilasiya was wrongly mentioned as Sonelal Yadav which was disproved by Ext.7, Ext.10, and Ext.11 and it was found that the said exhibits would prevail upon Ext.B which was revisional survey purcha, 3 whereas other reliable documents proved that the name of the husband of Bilasiya Devi was Dular Chand Yadav which was also supported by two nephews of Bilasiya Devi, who deposed as PWs.6 and 7 claiming that Bilasiya Devi was the wife of Dular Chand Yadav and had no female issue. Hence it was rightly held by the learned courts below that the plaintiff was the only issue of Bilasiya Devi wife of Dular Chand Yadav. In the said circumstances the learned courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 16.05.1985 in favour of defendant was created without consideration just for the purpose of making out an evidence which was not valid, genuine, operative and was without consideration executed by fictitious ladies, who claimed to be daughters of Bilasiya. The learned courts below also specifically found that since the said sale deed was executed by fictitious ladies who had no right, title or interest in the properties as they were not daughters of Bilasiya Devi, the said document was void ab-initio and it did not require to be set aside as it was held a nullity, hence there was no question of any bar of limitation to the suit due to the aforesaid sale deed. 7. So far the questions of possession and dispossession are concerned, both the learned courts below came to the specific findings of fact that defendants 1st party were in the habit of intermittent acts of dispossession and hence their claim of dispossession of the plaintiff on 19.07.1985 cannot be taken seriously as the evidence had clearly proved that the plaintiff was 4 dispossessed by defendants 1st party on 01.06.1991 and hence the plaintiff was legally entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land for which specific relief was sought by him. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )