IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.374 of 2004 KAMESHWAR SAHNI & ORS Versus KAUSHALIYA DEVI ----------- 6/ 28-08-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned lower appellate court. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.138 of 1985 ( 193 of 1987) which was filed by the plaintiff- respondent- respondent for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land also for declaration that the two sale deeds dated 11.06.1990 executed by defendants 2nd party in favour of defendants 1st party with respect to the suit land were void, illegal and without consideration. The aforesaid suit was decreed on contest with cost by learned Subordinate Judge-3, Motihari vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.1989 which were challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 205 of 1989 and the same was dismissed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, East Champaran by judgment and decree dated 30.08.2004. Both the judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. The learned courts below have considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record in detail , whereafter they came to specific findings that the deposition of defendants’ witnesses, except D.W. 4, was not competent to depose on pedigree of 2 the family of Kaushilya Devi and Bhagmati Devi. So far as D.W. 4 was concerned, it was found that he had also admitted in paragraph 5 of his cross-examination that he cannot say about the pedigree of the family of Ugan Sahhani or his in-laws and as to who were the female members of brother of Ugan Sahani and his uncle and also cannot name the children of their family. In the said circumstances the learned courts below have given findings that the said defendants’ witness was also not in a position to clearly depose about pedigree of the family of Ugan Sahani . On the other hand, learned courts below specifically found that the plaintiff witness No. 3, Lakha Sahani had turned up before the court and had deposed that Kaushilya Devi was not his daughter, rather she was the daughter of Ugan Sahani. Furthermore, P.W. 7, Kaushilya Devi has stated that she was not the daughter of Lakha Sahani whereas P.W. 6 has stated that the in-laws of Ugan Sahani were of village Dhekla whereas the Maika of Bagmati Devi was at village Belwanwa . In the said circumstances the learned courts below found consistent evidence to support the claim of the plaintiffs. Much reliance has been placed by the appellants on Ext.-C, Ration Card as well as Ext.- B, the voter list and both of them have been fully considered in detail in paragraphs-43 and 48 of the judgment of the learned court of appeal below in which it was found that there was no seal of the owner of public distribution system shop on the Ration Card which was also not found to be reliable for the reasons mentioned therein. The learned courts of appeal below also found that the main witness to support the defendants claim could have been 3 Bhagmati Devi herself but she was never produced by the defendants without any reason having been shown as to why she was not produced as witness. In the said circumstances the learned courts of appeal below have rightly held that Ugan Sahani had a wife Bhagmati and he died leaving behind Kaushiliya Devi as his daughter who was the plaintiff of the suit and she was not the daughter of Lakha Sahani. It has thus been rightly held that Bhagmati was wife of Ugan Sahani and Babulal Sahani was his son. In the said 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. B.Tiwary/ ( S. N. Hussain, J )