IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.24 of 2006 ---- Most.Rajeshwari Devi W/O Late Bindeshwar Singh, resident of Village-Gangiya, P.S. Katra, District-Muzaffarpur. At present resident of Mohalla-Balbhadrapur, Town, P.S. Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga. -- Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1. Sri Haridwar Prasad Singh Son of Late Babu Kali Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Gangiya, P.S. Katra, District-Muzaffarpur at present Resident of Mohalla- Balbhadrapur Town, P.S. Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga. --Plaintiff-Respondent 1st Set-Respondent. 2. Sri Ram Bilash Singh son of Late Babu Premlal Singh. 3. Sri Chandeshwar Prasad Singh son of Ram Bilash Singh. Both 2 and 3 are residents of Village-Gangiya P.S. Katra, District-Muzaffarpur, at present Resident of Mohalla- Balbhadrapur Town, P.S. Laheria Sarai, District-Darbhanga. -- Defendants 1st Party-Respondents 2nd Set-Respondents. ----- For the appellant : Mr. Tejendra Sinha, Advocate For the respondent no.1 : Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate M/s.Rajesh Kumar & Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocates. ---- 10. 15.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.72 of 1983 which was filed by plaintiff-respondent-respondents 1st Set for specific performance of contract against the defendants and for directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after taking Rs.15,000.00 as balance consideration amount failing which registered deed be executed through the process of the court and for - 2 - other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge, III, Darbhanga on 30.06.1995. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No.25 of 1995 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.III, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 05.12.2005. 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 admittedly Ram Bilash Singh was the owner of the suit property and Chandeshwar Prasad Singh was his son.. It also transpires that defendant-appellant claimed that a Mahadnama dated 15.06.1980 (Ext.-A) was executed by Ram Bilash Singh in favour of the defendant-appellant, whereafter registered sale deed dated14.11.1983 (Ext.B) was executed by the said Ram Bilash Singh in favour of the defendant- appellants with regard to suit properties. However, the plaintiff-respondent claimed that Mahadanama produced by the defendant-appellant dated 15.06.1980 (Ext.A) was a forged and fabricated un-registered document created as an afterthought much later and, in fact, Ram Bilash Singh and Chandeshwar Prasad Singh had executed a Mahadanama dated 14.11.1980 (Ext.8) in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land and only to circumvent the said document, Ext.-8, a Mahadanama dated 15.06.1980 (Ext.A) was much subsequently concocted and a sale deed dated 14.11.1983 (Ext.-B) - 3 - was executed by Ram Bilash Singh in favour of the defendant- appellant which was clearly an after thought and to play fraud with the plaintiff-respondent. 6. The learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties found that in course of hearing of the title appeal, the original appellant Bindeshwar Prasad Singh died and his legal heirs substituted in his place were made appellants who are also appellants in the instant second appeal and they claimed that they are continuously residing in the suit house as a tenant of the father of defendant no.1 since the year 1954 and this fact was not contested before the court below and even in course of hearing of the title appeal. 7. The learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the specific conclusion that the plaintiff had proved his case that Mahadanama executed by defendants no.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff dated 14.11.1980 (Ext.-8) was genuine, valid and for consideration and that the Mahadanama dated 15.06.1980 (Ext.-A) and the registered sale deed dated 14.11.1983 (Ext.-B) executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.3-appelant were not genuine, valid and for any consideration and also that they have been subsequently brought into existence collusively and fraudulently without any consideration merely for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff’s Mahadanama dated 14.11.1980 (Ext.-8). 8. The said findings have been arrived at by the learned - 4 - courts below after properly and legally considering the materials on record as well as pleadings of the parties and hence this court does not find any illegality therein, 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)