IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.162 of 2004 ALAKHDEO PRASAD Versus SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS ----------- 17. 15.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant. In a suit for partition both the learned courts below have arrived at concurrent findings that lands appertaining to C.S Khata nos. 118,119, 120 and 589 of Mouza Rajauli Tola do not belong to joint family of Kashi Mahto and Gajo Mahto, rather they are self acquired property of Sitaram from his grand father Jagarnath and after death of Sitaram it was inherited by Bachchi Devi and her daughters, defendants no.5 to 9 who are coming in exclusive possession thereof and accordingly the revisional survey khatian with respect to the aforesaid land had rightly been prepared in the name of Bachchi Kuer. It has been concurrently found that in the deed of gift in question the exclusive property of defendants no.5 to 9 have also been included and as such the said deed was invalid, void and inoperative document and the deed of gifts dated 20.5.1985 and 25.5.1985, which were executed prior to the institution of the suit for partition when the family was joint, were also invalid, void and inoperative. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised another issue that two written statements had been filed on behalf of the defendants and in the latter one it was stated that the earlier written statement was not filed by them, rather a fraud had been committed. He further submits that in view of a decision of this court in case of Mahanth Ramcharan Das Vs. Surya Narayan Misra and others, reported in - 2 - 1963 BLJR 489, a duty is cast upon the court to decide first which written statement has to be relied upon. Learned court of appeal below has considered this matter also and has found that the property appertaining to C.S.Khata Nos.118, 119, 120 and 589 having been acquired by Sitaram and that the two deeds of gift executed by Gajo Mahto being already held to be invalid, void and inoperative it would be a wastage of energy to inquire as to which of the two written statements was genuine written statement of Gajo Mahto. It is quite apparent that when the plaintiff himself could not prove his case, the learned court below has rightly arrived at the said finding. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. sunil ( S.N.Hussain,J.)