IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.319 of 2008 SMT. CHANMANTI DEVI wife of Nandlal Prasad daughter of late Sheo Nandan Mahto, resident of village Talimpur, P.O. & P.S. Madhuban, District East Champaran… …Defendant 2nd Party/Appellant Versus 1. LAKSHMI PRASAD YADAV 2. Ram Chandra Pd. Yadav, Both sons of Bhikhari Rai, residents of village Bajitpur, P.O. & P.S. Madhuban, District East Champaran, 3. Ganesh Prasad son of Ram Saran Prasad, resident of village Talimpur, P.O. & P.S. Madhuban, District East Champaran, 4. Rajendra Prasad son of Harishchandra Prasad, Resident of village Sugapipra, P.O. Kodaria, P.S. Patahi, District East Champaran, 5. Binda Prasad son of Kamal Bhagat, Resident of village Amoria, P.O. Rupahara, P.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran, 6. Jadolal Prasad son of late Bhikhar Bhagat, 7. Jaylal Prasad son of late Bhikhar Bhagat, Both residents of village Bajeepur, Tola Maniapur, P.O. & P.S. Madhuban, District East Champaran, 8. Ram Sakhi Devi wife of Mahendra Prasad Kushwaha, D/o late Bhikhar Bhagat, residentof village Ranipati, P.O. Rajepur, P.S. Rajepur, District East Champaran, 9. Sita Sunder Devi wife of Baiju Prasad, daughter of late Bhikhar Bhagat, residentof village Dhekakaha Tola Bisunpur, P.O. Dhekaha, P.S. Motihari Muffasil, District East Champaran, …Plaintiff/Respondent Ist Set/Respondents For the Appellant: Mr. Shiv Nandan Rai, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Pravina Kumari Rai, Ram Sinha, Advocates. ----------- 06 06.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 The appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 123/90/9/2002 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, East Champaran, Motihari, affirming the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 218 of 1986 by the Subordinate Judge I, East Champaran, Motihari, has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff brought Title Suit No. 218 of 1986 for declaration that defendant no. 1 of the suit was incompetent to transfer the properties detailed in Schedule I of the plaint and no title did ever accrue to defendant no. 2 by dint of deed no. 1449, the deed of gift dated 20.02.1986. The suit was for further declaration of the plaintiff’s title over the suit land and confirmation of his possession and alternatively for recovery of possession if the plaintiff is found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and further for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any sort of interference in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The trial court dealt with the main issues as issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 and upon appreciation of the materials on record including the evidence led on behalf of the parties had 3 come to the conclusion that Sheonandan Bhagat died in the state of jointness with his brother Narain Bhagat before 1936, and, therefore, the defendant no. 1 being the widow of aforesaid Sheonandan Bhagat had no interest in the suit property of her husband Sheonandan Bhagat in the co- parcenery property, as she was merely a maintenance holder at that time inasmuch as the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act was subsequently enacted in 1937. The trial court had also come to the conclusion that the defendant no. 1 (the widow of Sheonandan Bhagat) did not have any separate property in hand in lieu of her maintenance on or before 17.06.1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The court had noticed that section 4 of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 provides that nothing in this case shall apply to the property of any Hindu dying intestate before commencement of this Act. Therefore, by virtue of even the subsequent amendment Act XI of 1938 the defendant no. 1 would not acquire any interest in the property in question as the aforesaid Sheonandan Bhagat died before 1936 in jointness with his brother Narain Bhagat, who had acquired his interest. After the death of Narain Bhagat the original plaintiff being his son had acquired the same status in 4 the property. Thus, the plaintiff’s right, title and interest had been declared and it was held that the widow (defendant no. 1) did not have any right to execute a deed of gift. The defendant-appellant thereafter preferred Title Appeal No. 123/90. The appellate court also upon appreciation of the material facts and evaluation of evidence led by rival sides came to the conclusion that the husband of the defendant no. 1, namely, Sheonandan Bhagat died prior to 1936 in state of jointness of his brother Narain Bhagat and the status of the widow was merely a maintenance holder and since the land in question was not even given to her in lieu of maintenance she was neither a limited owner when the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 came into force nor did she become absolute owner of the suit property after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as per its provisions contained in Section 14 and, as such, the title of the plaintiff being son of Narain Bhagat was held to be perfect after recording a finding that the widow, the defendant no. 1, did not have competence to execute the sale deed with regard to the suit property. Thus, the judgment and decree of the trial court was upheld. Herein also learned counsel for the appellant 5 could not show any substantial error committed either by the trial court or the appellate court leading to substantial question of law. The decisions of the courts below are concluded by concurrent findings on facts and no substantial question arises in this second appeal. As a result, this second appeal being devoid of any merit is, thus, dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)