IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.103 of 2005 Matia Devi, wife of late Ramdeo Yadav, resident of Village Dahiyar, P.S. Barachatti, District Gaya ……Petitioner Versus Ram Kishun Yadav, son of Sri Ganesh Yadav,resident Village Dahiyar, P.S.Barachatti,District Gaya …… Respondent ----------- For the Appellant : M/s Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Bindhyachal Singh and Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : M/s Suraj Narayan Yadav and Nikhilesh Kumar,Advocates ---------- 09/ 17.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-appellant against the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 106 of 1986(26/1994), which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the registered deed of gift dated 25.02.1984, said to have been executed by her in favour of the defendant-respondent-respondent, was void and fraudulent and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif, Sherghati, Gaya, vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.1995, which was challenged by the plaintiff in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1995( 89/1999), which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge VII, Gaya, on contest with cost by judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005. The aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned 2 courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. From the averments of the parties as well as the materials on record including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that it has been concurrently found on the basis of pleadings and evidence that the plaintiff had put her left thumb impression on the deed of gift knowingly in full sense being aware of the consequences and hence no fraud had been played by the defendant. It has also been concurrently found that the defendant had fully discharged his onus by proving that the deed of gift was duly executed and attested fulfilling the essential conditions as prescribed in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the said 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 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. )