IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.451 of 2009 Bibi Begum & Anr. Versus Md. Yasin ---------------------------------- 7 28.09.2011 Heard Mr. Avinash Kumar in support of this appeal. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 3.8.2009 passed by the District Judge, Katihar in Title Appeal No. 22 of 2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2008 passed by the Sub-Judge-Ist in Title Suit No. 18 of 1999. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 3.12.1998 executed by Bibi Zaida Khatoon in favor of defendant are forged, fabricated and fraudulent document unable to confer valid title interest and possession upon the purchasers. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the son of Bibi Zaida Khatoon from her first husband whereas the defendant no.1 was borne to her from her second husband. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant no.1 by practicing fraud upon Bibi Zaida Khatoon had obtained the sale deed in question with regard to her entire properties. It has been also alleged that Bibi Zaida Khatoon at the time of execution of the sale deed in question was an old and hard hearing lady suffering from diseases and within 34 days of the execution of the sale deed she also expired. The defendants filed their written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that the sale deeds have been legally and validly executed by Bibi Zaida Khatoon . The core issue in the suit was the fraud practice upon 2 Bibi Zaida Khatoon in obtaining the sale deed from her. Both the courts below, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties have come to the concurrent finding that the fraud had been exercised upon Zaida Khatoon by the defendants in obtaining the sale deeds from her and no consideration amount had been paid to her. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there is no sufficient evidence on record to sustain the finding of fraud and only oral evidence has been adduced which was insufficient to establish the case of fraud. The perusal of the judgment of both the courts below shows that both the parties have led evidence in accordance with their rival claim and the findings by the court have been arrived after considering those evidences. During the course of argtument nothing could be shown to establish that the findings are perverse. The findings of fact are binding upon the court in second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. M.Rahman (V. Nath, J.)