DEOKI SAHANI Vs. DEONANDAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1 against the Judgment and Decree dated 6.3.1993 passed by learned Ist Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarpur in Title Appeal No.52 of 1980 / 6 of 1982 whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dated 14.10.1980 passed by the learned Munsif, West Muzaffarpur in title suit No.50 of 1979.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent, Deonandan Prasad, filed the aforesaid suit praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on the disputed land mentioned in detail in the plaint. THE plaintiff's claimed the aforesaid relief of permanent injunction alleging that he has purchased the suit property by terms of the registered sale deed dated 30.10.1975 executed by Gujwa, daughter of Mostt. Suratiya (ext.4). This Mostt. Suritiya was widow of Mahadeo Sahni. Mostt. Suratiya had inherited the property in the year 1945 on the death of her husband Mahadeo. He had executed a registered deed of Ladabhi on 30.4.1979 in support of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. After the sale deed the plaintiff came in possession of the property. It appears that subsequently by amendment, recovery of possession was also prayed for. According to the plaintiff, the property was acquired by Mahadeo Sahni who died in the year 1945 leaving behind his widow, Mostt. Suratiya defendant No.3. She remarried with Shiv Mangal Sahni after the death of her husband Mahadeo Sahni. THE property was acquired by Mahadeo.

(3.) FROM perusal of the Judgment of the lower appellate Court, it appears that the lower appellate Court has independently considered all the evidences available on record and then recorded the finding that Gujwa is the daughter of Mahadeo Sahni. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that while recording this finding, the lower appellate Court has not considered the evidence of P.W.7 is concerned, it may be mentioned here that it is not the case of the appellant that on the basis of the other admissible evidences which was relied upon by the lower appellate Court, the finding could not have been recorded by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel that the Judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated for non-consideration of the evidence of P.W.7, in my opinion, is not a substantial question of law because it relates to sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence. Moreover from perusal of the evidence of this witness, it appears that the Court has assessed her age in the year 1980 to be 35 years and she has stated before the Court that her age is 40 years. According to the evidence of this witness, Mostt. Gujwa was going to school with this witness. The learned counsel submitted that this witness has stated that 15-16 years ago, she was reading in Class I. Much emphasis has been given by the appellant on this portion of her evidence. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence of this P.W.7, it cannot be recorded conclusively that Gujwa was daughter of Shiv Mangal Sahni, i.e., second husband of Mostt. Suratiya.