IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.326 of 1998 THAKUR CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus DINA NATH CHOUDHARY & ORS ----------- 09/ 10.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 09 of 1989 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent 1st set for declaration of title, confirmation /recovery of possession and for declaration that deed of gift dated 27.02.1969 executed by Mostt. Ratia to Surat Choudhary and others and sale deed executed by defendant nos. 1 to 6 in favour of defendant nos.7 to 13 were illegal, void, forged, etc. and also for declaration that order passed by Executive Magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was illegal. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Gopalganj vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.1995 which was challenged by the defendants -appellants in Title Appeal No. 19 of 1995 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Gopalganj vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.1998. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed by defendants-appellants-appellants. From the judgments and decree of the learned courts below as well from the materials on record and also the arguments raised, it is quite apparent that Nohar Ahir had a son Somari and three daughters, Nemiya, Premiya and Dulari. Both the learned courts below have held that Somari died issueless in the year 1930 in the lifetime of his father Nohar Ahir, who had subsequently died in the year 1934. The learned courts below have also found that the aforesaid three daughters of Nohar Ahir inherited the property as per the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment)Act, 1929 to the exclusion of Ratia, who was the widow of Somari. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned courts below have correctly held that the daughters of Nohar had every right to transfer the land but Ratia had no such right or title over the suit property and hence, the gift deeds(Exhibit B series)executed by Ratia in favour of the father of defendants and others were not legal and valid. It was also held that the sale deed(Exhibit-1) executed by Premini and heirs of Dulari in favour of the plaintiff was legal, valid and proper as per their specific right and title and on its basis the plaintiff acquired indefeasible right and title over the suit property. It was also held by the learned courts below that although defendants claimed their title by adverse possession over the suit land but they miserably failed to prove their possession before the suit and contesting defendant no.6 who was himself D.W.12 could not even say the year, month or date of contesting defendants’ possession. In the said circumstances, the learnt courts below rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff came and continued in possession on the basis of his sale deed and was illegally dispossessed by the contesting defendants on 25.12.1993 during the pendency of the suit. 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 dismissed. harish/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)