IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.127 of 2007 Shamshad Ahmad Khan, son of late Syed Ahmad Khan, resident of Mohalla Rajo Patti, P.S. Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi. …..Plaintiff no.1-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1. Neyaz Khan 2. Nehal Khan 3. Nawab Khan 4. Nasarat Khan Sons of late Abdul Rauf Khan Nos.1 to 4 all resident of Sheohar, P.S. and District Sheohar. 5. Baby Khatoon, wife of Gulam Khan, daughter of Late Abdul Rauf Khan, resident of Barbas, P.O. Banchauri, P.S. Dumra, District Sitamarhi. 6. Bibi Naushad, wife of Umar Khan, daughter of late Abdul Rauf Khan, resident of village Garahia, P.O., P.S. Mehsi, District East Champaran. 7. Nasimya Khatoon, wife of Mansoor Khan, daughter of Late Abdul Rauf Khan, resident of village Muralia Chak, P.O. and P.S. Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi. …….Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. 8. Shamim Ahmad Khan son of late Syed Ahmad Khan, resident of Mohalla Rajo Patti, P.S. and District Sitamarhi. …….Plaintiff no.2-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellant :M/s Lala Sachindra Kumar and Ashok Kumar Sinha No.2, Advocates. For the respondents :None. ----------- 07/ 04.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff no.1- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.07 of 1998 which was filed by the plaintiff namely appellant no.1 and respondent no.8 jointly for declaration that the deed of gift dated 07.01.1976 executed by Abid Hussain in favour of defendant be declared to be null and 2 void and for recovery of rent from the defendants and for damages etc. The said suit was dismissed ex-parte by Munsif, Sheohar vide his judgment and decree dated 18.11.2000. 4. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court only plaintiff no.1 filed Title Appeal No.01 of 2001 (59/2006) which was also dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.I, Sitamarhi vide his judgment and decree dated 20.04.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the judgments and decree of the courts below, but it is quite apparent from the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the courts below that the said suit was filed by two plaintiffs, out of whom no one deposed to support their pleadings. However, PW.1 appeared on their behalf claiming to be their Attorney, but no document of Power of Attorney having been produced, it cannot be legally presumed that he was their Attorney looking after the case on behalf of plaintiffs and hence the pleadings in the plaint were not supported by either the plaintiffs or by anyone authorized by the plaintiffs. It was also found that the plaintiffs did not also prove the alleged sale deed which was the basis of their claim. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed at this 3 stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)