IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.62 of 2008 ----------- 1. Mani Kant Jha 2. Daya Kant Jha 3. Maya Kant Jha All sons of late Jatadhar Jha 4. Smt. Kalpana Devi 5. Shubha Kala Devi 6. Bachni Devi Daughters of late Jatadhar Jha 7. Most. Bacchi Devi, wife of late Shita Kant Jha 8. Ashish Kumar Jha 9. Alok Kumar Jha Both sons of late Shila Kant Jha 10. Priti Devi 11. Jyoti Devi 12. Arti Devi Daughters of late Shila Kant Jha 13. Ashok Jha, son of Kashi Jha 14. Anil Jha 15. Lalit Jha Both sons of Kushe Jha 16. Jhari Jha, son of Luchan Jha 17. Mamta Devi, daughter of Jatadhar Jha All residents of village Lakhnour, P.S. Lakhnour, District Madhubani ….Defendant 1st set-appellants-appellants versus 1. Srimati Lakshmi Devi, wife of Baidya Nath Jha, resident of village Lakhnour, P.S. Lakhnour, District Madhubani ......Plaintiff-Respondent 1st set-Respondent 1st set. 2. Baidya Nath Jha, son of Feku Jha resident of village Lakhnour, P.S. Lakhnour, District Madhubani 3. Deo Narayan Jha 4. Jai Narayan Jha Both sons of late Maksudan Jha, residents of village Lakhnour, P.S. Lakhnour, District Madhubani ….Defendants-respondents 2nd set-respondents 2nd set. 5. Prabhu Jha, son of Vishwanath Jha, resident of village Lakhnour, P.S. Lakhnour, District Madhubani …Defendants-Respondent 3rd set-Respondent 3rd set. ----------- For the appellants : M/s R. K. P. Singh and Yogendra Jha, Advocates. For respondent no.1 : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For respondents no. 2 to 5 : None. -------- 2 06/ 08.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants 1st set-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Appeal No. 27 of 1994, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent 1st set for declaration of her title over 6 kathas 8 ½ dhurs of land from south of cadastral survey plot no.6600 and 9 ½ dhurs of land towards north of cadastral survey plot no.6008 and also for confirmation of her possession and alternatively recovery of possession and for injunction and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Munsif, Jhanjharpur vide his judgment and decree dated 09.07.1996. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, defendants-appellants filed Title Appeal No. 52 of 1996, which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Madhubani vide his judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, but it is quite apparent that the learned courts below have considered the entire matter in detail and on the basis of 3 the pleadings and evidence of the parties, had come to the conclusion that in their entire pleadings and evidence, the defendants had failed to show that if the entire area of plot no.6600 was allotted to Ghutan Jha then what land in lieu of it was allotted to his admitted co-sharer Shiv Nath Jha. 6. Furthermore, no specific mode of transfer has been stated rather the learned courts below had found that from the documents and dealing regarding lands belonging to the family of Bhavi Jha either made by Ghutan Jha, Rukmani Devi and Anokha Chaudharain or their subsequent transferee vide various deeds, it clearly came in picture that only half portion of plot no. 6600 was allotted to Ghutan Jha and not total area of that plot . It was also found that although the defendants claimed that the entire area of plot no.6600 was acquired by Rukmani Devi, but in paragraph 18 of their written statement, they specifically admitted that only half share measuring 6 kathas 8 ½ dhurs of plot no. 6600 was given to Rukmani Devi by Ghutan Jha through deed of gift dated 04.10.1945 ( Ext.1/B) executed by her father Ghutan Jha and no other deed of gift or transfer had been found to be executed by Ghutan Jha. 7. Hence, it was quite clear that Rukmani Devi got only 6 kathas 8 ½ dhurs i.e. half of plot no.6600 and was entitled to transfer only the said area and not more than that. Any transfer made by Rukmani Devi to Deo Narayan Jha regarding the entire area of plot no.6600 was clearly not valid and legal to that extent 4 and further subsequent transfers made by Deo Narayan Jha and Jay Narayan Jha either to the defendants or to vendor of the defendants were also not legal. The learned courts below also found that the evidence available on record clearly shows that Anokha Chaudharain validly got half share of plot no.6600 after the death of her father Shiv Nath Jha to whom half share of plot no.6600 was allotted and in this way the plaintiff had validly purchased the suit land measuring 6 kathas 8 ½ dhurs of plot no.6600 from a valid title holder. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the plaintiff had validly acquired right, title and interest over the suit land. 8. So far the question of possession raised by defendants-appellants is concerned, the learned trial court had framed specific issue no.5 with regard to subsisting right, title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and the said issue no. (v) along with issues no. (iv) & (vi), was decided in favour of the plaintiff as is clear from paragraph 21 of the judgment of the trial court after considering the evidence with regard to possession at paragraph no.16 thereof. Furthermore, the learned court of appeal below in paragraph 17 of its judgment had also found that the findings given by the learned trial court regarding title and possession of the plaintiff was based on reasoning and there was no illegality or irregularity therein. 9. So far the question regarding the plaintiff not 5 supporting her pleadings by appearing as a witness is concerned, the learned courts below had very carefully considered that aspect of the matter and had come to the conclusion that the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint had been fully supported by her son Sushil Jha, who deposed as P.W.1 as well as by P.W.3, who was the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff could not appear because she was a Pardanashin lady. Hence, there was sufficient evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to prove her pleadings. 10. So far the question of error of record as claimed by the appellants is concerned, it is absolutely baseless as in paragraph 18 of the written statement, it has been specifically stated by the defendants that Ghutan Jha, during his life time, had executed a deed of Atainama dated 04.10.1945 in favour of his daughter Rukmani Devi for 6 kathas 8 ½ dhurs of cadastral survey plot no.6600. In the said circumstances, there was no mention about remaining 6 kathas 8 ½ dhurs of plot no. 6600. In these circumstances, it is also apparent that the claim of the defendants in paragraph 8 of their written statement was quite contradictory to their statements made in paragraph no.18 of the written statement. This clearly shows frivolity of the entire claim of the defendants and their greed to usurp the entire plot no. 6600. 11. 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, 6 dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )