IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.94 of 2008 Prahlad Prasad Agrawal, son of Late Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, resident of village Bhabua Town, Ward No.1, P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur at Bhabua.……..Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1. Rajni Kant Das @ Guddu Das, son of Late Prem Shankar Das, resident of village Bhabua Town, Ward No.1, P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur at Bhabua. 2. Pritam Devi W/o Bipin Bihari Lal resident of village Munjhiyawn, P.S. Bhagwanpur, Kaimur, at present Bhabua Town, Ward No.6, P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur at Bhabua. 3. Sumeshwar Tiwary son of Vishwanath Tiwary, resident of village Mujhiyawn, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Kaimur at present Bhabua Town, Ward No.6, P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur at Bhabua. …………Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellant : M/s Dr. Kislay, Suman Kumari Singh and Ajay Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 07/ 11.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.79 of 2003 which was filed by plaintiff-appellant for declaration of his title and confirmation of his possession over 2 ¾ decimals of land of R.S. Plot No.35 appertaining to R.S. Khata No.451 situated in the village of Seevon under Bhabua police station within the district of Kaimur and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Bhabua vide his judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006. 2 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.08 of 2006 (05/2006) which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.I, Kaimur vide his judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of both the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below on various points raised by him which show that he has done considerable labour in the instant case and is fully aware of the entire matrix of the case and has placed it very enthusiastically and elaborately, but the fact remains that the claim of the plaintiff over the suit property was on the basis of a sale deed dated 30.09.1991 (Ext.2) said to have been executed by the owner in favour of the plaintiff. However, both the learned courts below concurrently found that the suit land with its boundaries were not included in the said sale deed and there was lack of material i.e. cogent and consistent evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to prove the plaintiff’s title and possession over the suit land on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. It was also held that the plaintiff’s vendor Rajni Kant was not even the owner of the suit property and hence he had no authority to execute any sale deed with respect to any land under joint possession of several co- sharers without the permission of other coparceners as per the 3 provision of Article 258 of the Hindu Law. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )