IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.256 of 2001 1. Mostt. Lalmuni Devi widow of Late Chandra Shekhar Mishra. 2. Gita Devi, daughter of Late Chandra Shekhar Mishra and wife of Baidya Nath Pandey. Both are residents of Village- Mahuli, Police Station- Barhara, District- Bhojpur........................Appellants. Versus 1. Mostt. Sheodaso Kunwar, widow of Late Ram Dularua Mishra. 2. Chandrama Mishra, son of Sheodatt Mishra. 3. Daya Nath Mishra, son of Chandrama Mishra. 4. Uma Devi, daughter of Chandrama Mishra. 5. Tribhuwan Mishra. 6. Kapildeo Mishra. 7. Ravindra Mishra. 8. Praduman Mishra. Nos. 5 to 8 are sons of Late Badri Mishra. 9. Phulbaso Devi. 10. Panbaso Devi. 11. Atarbaso Devi. 12. Bibhawat Devi. Nos. 9 to 12 are daughters of Late Badri Mishra. All are residents of Village- Mahuli Bujurg, Police Station and Anchal Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur...........Defendants..Respondents..Respondents. ----------- For the appellants: Mr. A.K. Dwivedi, Advocate. ---------- 7. 20.07.2009. Heard learned counsel for the appellants who has questioned the propriety of the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2001 passed in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1992 confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1991 of the Learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Arrah in Title Suit No. 113 of 1985. The substantial question of law that the learned counsel for the appellants has sought to raise is whether respondent no.1 had the legal right to execute the sale deed of the property in question which was exclusive property of the plaintiffs. - 2 - This issue was never raised in the court below and the said sale deed was primarily challenged on the ground of being a fraudulent document. Both the courts below have held that the sale deed in question was not a fraudulent document and the respondent no.1 had the right to execute the sale deed. This being a concurrent finding of fact by the two courts below can not now be agitated in the Second Appeal. Another submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the sale deed in question was ab initio void since the prior permission of the Consolidation Authorities as required under Section 5 of the Consolidation Act had not been taken. From the judgments of the two courts below it would be apparent that nothing has been shown or brought on record to show that the property in dispute had been notified by the Consolidation Authority and that the said lands had come within the chak allotted to the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the second submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants not being a substantial question of law does not deserve any consideration. There being no substantial question of law involved which is required to be considered in this Second Appeal, the same is dismissed. U.K. (Abhijit Sinha,J)