IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No. 38 of 1994 Uma Kant Dubey son of late Pt. Durga Dutt Dubey, resident of village Bariyaria, P.S. Sangrampur, District East Champaran …..Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Versus 1 (i) Smt. Singhashni Kuer widow of late Awadhesh Narain Mishra (ii) Ajay Mishra (iii) Anil Mishra all sons of late Awadhesh Narain Mishra (iv) Prabha Devi (v) Mridula Devi (vi) Uma Devi (Vii) Basu Devi all daughters of late Awadhesh Narain Mishra, all residents of village Bariaria, Tola Mishir, P.S. Sangrampur, P.O. Bariaria, District East Champaran. 2. Shri Vijai Kumar Mishra son of Suresh Narain Mishra (deceased) , resident of village Bariaria, Tola Missir, P.S. Govindganj, at present Sangrampur, Post Bariaria, District East Champaran 3. Smt. Nirmala Devi daughter of Shri Suresh Narain Mishra (deceased) wife of Shri Narendra Mishra alias Dhari Mishra, resident of village Bariaria Tola Mishra Gram, P.S. Govindganj, at present Sangrampur, District East Champaran. ……Defendants 1st party-Appellants-Respondents 4. Jalil Mian 5. Ashique Mian 6. Farhad Hussain Mian 7. Mainuddin Mian, all sons of Idan Mian 8. Rostam Mian son of Guleman Mian, resident of village Bariaria, Tola Darjeeya, P.S. Govindganj at present Sangrampur, Post Bariaria, District East Champaran …Defendants 2nd party-Respondents 2nd party-Respondents. 9. Bilahisan Sah son of Bachhu Sah, resident of village & Post Bariaria, P.S. Govindganj at present Sangrampur, District East Champaran. ..Defendant 3rd party-Respondent 3rd party-Respondent . 10. Bindeshwari Pandey son of Sukan Pandey(deceased), resident of village Barariya, P.S. Govindganj, Post Dariyapur, District East Champaran.. ..Defendant 4th party-Respondent 4th party-Respondent. 11. Basdeo Pandey son of Ramphal Pandey 12. Harendra Pandey 13. Bijendra Pandey 14. Rabindra Pandey sons of Satyadeo Pandey, 2 all residents of village Sareya, P.S. Govindganj, Post Sareya, District East Champaran. 15. Smt.Subashini Devi W/o Rameshwar Dubey daughter of Satyadeo Pandey(deceased), resident of village Barharwa, P.S. Harsidhi at present Sareya (Pipra), District East Champaran. …Defendants 5th Party-Respondents 5th Party-Respondents. For the appellant : M/s Umakant Shukla and Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, Advocate. ----------- 13/ 29.04.2009 I.A. No.4774 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the appellant on 22.08.2007 for substituting the heirs of respondent no.2 Shyam Narayan Mishra, who is said to have died on 18.06.2007 leaving behind a widow, a son and a daughter as his heirs and legal representatives fully detailed in paragraph-1 of the interlocutory application. This interlocutory application is well within the statutory period of limitation and is accordingly allowed. Let the aforesaid heirs be substituted in place of respondent no.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the sole plaintiff-respondent-appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.18 of 1970 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of his title and recovery of possession with respect to the suit properties and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned 3 Munsif, Motihari vide his judgment and decree dated 17.01.1984. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed Title Appeal No.20 of 1984 (29/1989) which was allowed on contest by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, East Champaran vide his judgment and decree dated 20.07.1993 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and rejecting the suit and claim of the plaintiff. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail the learned court of appeal below had specifically found that Mostt. Basmati was never married to Moti and hence she was not entitled to inherit the land left by him. It was also found that the plaintiff was relying upon Ext.8 which was the family register of 1954, but from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record, it was quite apparent that in Ext.8 the name of Basmati was entered in the family register for the first time in the year 1954 when admittedly she was in the house of Moti. The learned court of appeal below had also found that the said entry could have supported the claim of the plaintiff, had the alleged marriage between Moti and Basmati, not been seriously denied and disproved by a number of witnesses examined in the case. 6. In the said circumstances the learned court of appeal below rightly held that the said Basmati, who was executant of the 4 sale deeds (Ext.6 series), had no right, title and interest in the suit property and was not entitled to execute the said sale deeds and hence the transferee, namely Satyadeo Pandey in whose name the deeds were executed, or the plaintiff, who was claiming himself as the brother-in-law of Satyadeo Pandey and the real purchaser by the said deeds, could not legally acquire any right, title and interest through the aforesaid deeds. The learned court of appeal below also found that admittedly the possession of land was in favour of the defendants because the plaintiff had himself prayed for recovery of possession and mesne profit, whereas Ext.C series fully proved the claim of the defendants over the suit properties. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)