IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.329 of 2004 MOST.ANAR DEVI & ORS Versus ZALEBI DEVI & ORS ----------- 5. 19.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellant-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.226 of 1987 which was filed by plaintiff-respondent-respondent for declaration of her title and confirmation of possession over the suit land detailed in schedule-2 of the plaint and also for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant no.7 with respect to the suit land in the name of defendant Ist set were forged, fraudulent, sham and without consideration and the same were not binding on the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned 2nd Subordinate Judge, Lakhisarai vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 which was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No.3 of 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Lakhisarai vide judgment and decree dated 9.7.2004. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are challenged in the instant second appeal. From the averments as well as materials on record including the judgment and decree of the learned courts below it is quite apparent that the original owner of the suit property was one Shyam Mahto, who executed a registered deed of gift dated 7.11.1966 (Ext.3) with respect to 2 the suit property in favour of Saro Devi and subsequently the said Saori Devi executed a registered deed of sale dated 30.12.1983 in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming title and possession. On the other hand, claim of the defendants was that the said deed of gift dated 7.11.1966 was illegal and void document which was cancelled by a registered deed dated 13.6.1973 by Shyam Mahto, executant of the deed of gift. Thereafter Shyam Mahto sold it in favour of Kishori Mandal by a registered deed of the same date i.e. 13.6.1967. Both the learned courts below considered the entire mater in detail and found that after the deed of gift dated 7.11.1966 Saro Devi dealt with gifted property independently as exclusive owner thereof and also mortgaged the same on authority to the minor son of Vidya Singh and hence in the said circumstances the acceptance of gift by Saro Devi stood proved. Furthermore, the claim of the defendants was that Shyam Mahto being dissatisfied with the service of his daughter Saro Devi cancelled the deed of gift dated 13.6.1973 which clearly meant that the defendants admit that Shyam Mahto had executed the deed of gift in favour of Saro Devi. Law is well settled that in this regard a deed of gift cannot be cancelled unilaterally in this manner. If such a deed suffered from any illegality Shyam Mahto could have filed a case before the competent court for cancellation of the deed. Such a gift can be cancelled only by resorting to legal remedy in a competent court of law. Furthermore, the courts below specifically found that there was no evidence or document at all to show any semblance of fraud, undue influence or 3 misrepresentation upon Shyam Mahto. Mere dissatisfaction of the donor due to subsequent conduct of the donee cannot be validly held to be a reason for cancellation of deed of gift after about seven years and hence the learned courts below had rightly came to a conclusion that Shyam Mahto had no right to cancel the deed of gift once it was executed in favour of Saro Devi. Learned courts below have also considered the question of insufficiency of direct evidence on behalf of the defendants and came to a conclusion that records clearly showed that the deed of gift Ext.3 was a registered deed and there were two attesting witnesses, namely, Indradeo Lal and Jagdeo Paswan. Jagdeo Paswan had been examined as D.W.2, who stated that Shyam Mahto had executed a deed of gift in favour of Saro Devi. However, after the said statement he turned around and claimed that said Saro Devi did not accept the deed of gift but other evidence on record clearly and sufficiently proved that Saro Devi after accepting the deed of gift had acted on the basis of the said gift and dealt with the property independently. Hence, there is no question of non- acceptance of girt. Furthermore, the learned courts below have also considered that Ext.7 is deed of mortgage which contained signature of Kishori Mandal, predecessor of the appellant, who identified signature of Saro Devi and her sister Anar Devi. The said Kishori Mandal had not denied her signature on the mortgage deed. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that deed of gift dated 7.11.1966 was a valid deed and Saro Devi, who had sold the 4 property to the plaintiff had right, title and interest in the suit property on the basis of the said deed of gift. Furthermore, deed of cancellation was rightly found to be a non-valid and illegal document on the basis of which Shyam Mahto had no right to transfer the property to Kishori Mandal. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Md.S. ( S.N.Hussain,J.)