Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.485 of 2009 Bimla Devi Versus Meena Devi & Ors. ---------------------------------- 04. 12.01.2012 Heard Mr. Abbas Haider, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The plaintiff in this appeal is aggrieved by the judgment of affirmance dismissing the suit. The suit has been field for declaration of title and confirmation of possession on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.10.1996 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants 1st set resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the vendor of the plaintiff had earlier executed a gift deed in their favour and, therefore, by sale deed as claimed by the plaintiff, no valid title could have been conferred. However, the vendor of the plaintiff who was also the donor of the defendant 1st set had filed written statement in the suit and denied the execution of the gift deed and accepted the execution of the sale deed. But the defendant no.3 (vendor of the plaintiff) was not examined in the suit and even after his death the heirs, who had been substituted in his place, had also not examined themselves in the suit. 2 The trial court on the appreciation of the evidence of the parties, has come to the finding that the plaintiff has not acquired valid title on the basis of the sale deed. The trial court has also taken notice of the admission of the plaintiff herself that she had the knowledge of the gift deed one month prior to the execution of the sale deed. The trial court has also disbelieved the story of Mahadnama as set up by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The appellate court also, on reappraisal of the evidence in view of the rival submissions of the parties, concurred with the findings of the trial court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that both the courts below have committed error of law in ignoring material evidence and misappreciating the relevant evidence on record. It has been urged that once the vendor had appeared in the suit and filed his pleading stating that no gift deed had been executed by him in favour of the defendant 1st set, the court below should have given weight to that pleading even though the defendant no.3 or his heirs had not been examined in the suit. It has also 3 been contended that the Mahadnama, on the basis of which the plaintiff got the sale deed executed, was a valid document and after execution of the Mahadnama the defendant no.3 could not have the valid right to execute the gift deed. After perusing the impugned judgments and considering the submissions on behalf of the appellant it appears that the plaintiff herself had admitted that she had the knowledge of the gift deed one month prior to the execution of the sale deed. Clearly even after this knowledge the plaintiff proceeded to get the sale deed executed in her favour and has claimed title on that basis. Both the courts below, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has disbelieved the story set up by the plaintiff on the basis of the Mahadnama and have rightly not placed any reliance upon the pleading of the defendantno.3 which remained uncorroborated. The issues arising between the parties in the suit have now been concluded by concurrent findings of facts. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)