IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.29 of 2009 1. MIRTUNJAY JHA 2. Satyabrat Jha, 3. Ganesh Datta Jha, All sons of late Bisheshwar Jha, 4. Amar Kumar Jha, 5. Parimal Jha, Both sons of Gaanesh Datta Jha, All residents of village Raghunathpur, P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, District Begusarai, …Defendants/Appellants 6. Kailash Raj son of late Hira Lal Rak alias Doman Rajak Pichhaalagua son of Ram Chandra Rajak, resident of village Raghunathpur, P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, District Begusarai, at present village Hajipur Dhobi tola, Ward No. 4, PS and District Khagaria, …Defendant/Appellant/Appellant 2nd Party versus 1. Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi wife of late Ram Bali Rajak, 2. Sri Krishna Rajak, 3. Shivdani Rajak, 4. Kalicharan Rajak, 5. Jitendra Rajak, All sons of late Ram Bali Rajak, 6. Kabita Devi D/o late Ram Bali Rajak, 7. Bijendra Rajak son of late Ram Bali Rajak, All residents of village Raghunathpur, P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Sub-division Ballia District Begusarai, … … ..Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents Ist Party 8. Smt. Jashoda Kumari wife of Bijendra Jha resident of village Talwara, P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur, 9. Smt. Manita Kumari wife of Krishna Kumar Jah, resident of village Patna, P.S. Hasnpur, District Samastipur.. … … .. ..Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents 2nd Party … 8 22.11.2010 Heard Mr. Keshav Srivastava, learned senior counsel for the appellants. This appeal has been preferred against the 2 judgment and decree dated 26.09.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Begusarai, in Title Appeal No. 12/2005, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Sub- Judge Ist, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 127/96 decreeing the suit, has been affirmed. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title over the suit land and also for declaration that the defendant nos. 2 to 4 have not derived any right, title and interest from the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in their favour on 11.03.1996. Plaintiffs claim to be title holders of the suit property being in possession on being Khatiani raiyat as well as their purchased land. It has been stated by the plaintiffs that Somar Rajak had two sons, namely, Heera Lal alias Doman and Ram Bali, original plaintiff no. 1(since dead). Plaintiffs claim that Heera Lal died unmarried in 1962 and during life time of his father Somar, who died in 1971. Therefore, it has been claimed that the heirs of another branch Ram Bhajju and the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the Khatiani as well as purchased lands. It has been contended that defendant no. 1, Kailash Rajak, being stranger to his family, did not have any 3 right, title and interest over the suit property and, thus, was not competent to execute the concerned sale deed in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 4. The trial court framed seven issues in all and, upon appreciation of the materials on record, has held that though the claim of the defendants to the extent that Heera Lal died in 1966 and was also married is correct. However, so far the parentage of defendant no. 1(Kailash Rajak) is concerned, it has been held that he is not the posthumous son of Heera Lal, as has been claimed by the defendants. Thus, it has been held that he was not competent to execute the concerned sale deed in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 4. Accordingly, it has also been held that no title has passed to defendant nos. 2 to 4 as the vehicle of transfer itself is not valid. The suit was, accordingly, decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court by preferring Title Suit No. 12 of 2005. However, the appeal was also dismissed and the appellate court has also affirmed the findings of the trial court after holding that since the defendants claimed that Shakuntala Devi is wife of Heera Lal, therefore, onus lies 4 upon them to prove the same which they could not do. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the brother of Shakuntala Devi, namely, Gopal Rajak, has been examined as D.W. 6, and has stated that Shakuntala Devi is his sister and Kailash Rajak is son of Shakuntala Devi out of her wedlock with Heera Lal. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in that situation, the courts below should have held that Kailash Rajak was the son of Heera Lal. I do not find any substance in this submission raised on behalf of the appellants. The defendants have placed reliance upon ext. E, which is voter list of Balia Assembly Constituency to show that Heera Lal alias Doman Baitha was alive till 1.1.1966, i.e. the date of publication of the voter list and also to the extent that he was married to one Daibati Devi. The defendants have not stated in their written statement that Shakuntala Devi and Daibati Devi are one and the same person. However, at the time of her examination as DW Shakuntala Devi has stated that her alias name is Daibati Devi. Both the courts below have disbelieved this as DW 6 Gopal Rajak has stated in his evidence that he will produce documents in proof showing 5 that Shakuntala Devi is his sister and was married to Heera Lal, however, no such document could be produced on behalf of the defendants except a voter list, which has been filed to prove that Shakuntala Devi is the daughter of Jagdish Rajak. Thus, the fact that Shakuntala Devi was married to Heera Lal alias Doman Baitha alias Rajak could not be proved by that document. Secondly, no evidence has been brought on record to show that Heera Lal was living at Khagaria at the time of his death along with his wife Shakuntala. In above view of the matter, in my opinion, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are concluded by concurrent findings of fact and learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any defect, which may lead to a substantial question of law. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)