IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.48 of 2005 Kanti Devi wife of Sadhu Sharan Sah @ Sadhu Sharan Bhagat, resident of village Turkaulia, P.S. Turkaulia, District-East Champaran. …. Defendant no.2-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1. Motilal Sah son of Late Mani Sah, resident of village-Turkaulia, P.O. and P.S. Turkaulia, District-East Champaran. …. Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1st set. 2. Girja Devi wife of Paltan Sah D/o Badri Sah resident of village English Tola Nawadeeh, P.S. Paharpur, P.O. English District- East Champaran. ……Defendant no.1-Appellant no.1-Appellant. ----------- 08/ 17.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendant no.2-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 247 of 1990, which was filed by plaintiff-respondent-respondent no.1 for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff and also for declaration that defendant had acquired no right or title on the basis of deed of gift dated 23.12.1985, which is null and void and for injunction and other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by learned Munsif, Sadar Motihari vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.1994, which was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 08 of 1995 (28/2003). The said title appeal was dismissed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, East Champaran, vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2004 and hence the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the said judgments and decree of the learned courts 2 below. 5. Admittedly the owner of the suit property was Laljhari Devi, who had died on 10.11.1985 leaving behind her husband Jagan Sah. As per the claim of the plaintiff the said Jagan Sah executed an agreement for sale in favour the plaintiff on 06.11.1985 (Ext.3), whereafter the sale deed was executed by Jagan Sah on 12.03.1986 (Ext.1) in favour of the plaintiff and on the said basis the plaintiff was coming in possession over the suit land. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant was that on 20.11.1985 Jagan Sah executed a deed of gift (Ext.A) in favour of Girja Devi (respondent no.2), who executed a sale deed on 13.09.1990 in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. 6. Both the learned courts below considered the matter in detail, including the pleadings and evidence of the parties and came to a definite conclusion that the deed of gift, said to have been executed by Jagan Sah in favour of Girja Devi only ten days after the death of his wife, was null and void and conferred no title on the said Girja Devi or the appellant. It was also found that although the Mahadanama was executed by Jagan Sah before the death of his wife but he was looking after the property on her behalf and after her death he was fully entitled to honour the said Mahadanama and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Learned courts below further found that Jagan Sah had himself filed a criminal case against Girja Devi with respect to the deed 3 of gift dated 20.11.1985, which was registered after more than one month i.e. on 23.12.1985, claiming it to be forged and fraudulent. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it transpires that the judgments and decree of the learned courts below are covered by findings of facts and are legal and proper. No substantial question of law is found to be 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.)