HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. NATH CAV JUDGMENT Date
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.257 of 1992 =========================================================== Smt.Mundari Devi, wife of Vidya Prasad, resident of village-Sanda, P.S. Dhanrua, District-Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Ramashish Prasad. 2. Ram Charitra Prasad Sinha, both sons of Harihar Prasad. 3. Most. Shanti Devi, widow of late Chandeshwar Prasad. 4. Janardan Kumar Verma. 5. Bhushan Kumar. 6. Niraj Kumar Nearaj, 7. Ranjan Kumar Verma. All sons of late Chandeshwar Prasad. 8. Ram Babu Prasad, son of Sri Etwar Prasad. 9. Kanti Devi, wife of Kameshwar Prasad. 10. Malti Devi, wife of Brahma Prasad. 11. Shyam Sundari Devi, wife of Prameshwar Prasad. All residents of village Sonmai, P.S. Dhanarua, District-Patna. 12. Ram Jatan Mahto, son of late Mukhram Mahto resident of village Lalla Bhadsara, P.S. Bikram, District-Patna. 13. Kumari Raj Patti Devi. 14. Kumari Lalmani Devi 15. Kumari Sarda Devi. 16. Girja Mahto @ Arjun Singh, 13 to 16 are daughters and son of Ramjatan Mahto, all residents of village-Sonmai, P.S. Dhanarua, District-Patna. 17. Prameshwar Gope. 18. Ganauri Gope. 19. Rameshwar Gope, all sons of late Shiv Gope, all residents of village-Chak Johra, P.S. Dhanarua, District-Patna. 20. Nagina Devi, wife of Rampal Gope, resident of village-Tulsi Chak, P.S. Punpun, District-Patna. 21. Golwa Devi, wife of Bhagwat Gope resident of village Kachhuara, P.S. Phulwari, District-patna. 22. Nanhki Devi, wife of Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav, resident of village Gonai Bigha, P.S. Ekanger Sarai, District-Nalanda. Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 2 23. Umesh Gope, son of Parmeshwar Gope. 24. Musafir Gope, son of Raja Gope (Deceased) 25. Munakia Devi, wife of late Sheo Gope, all residents of village-Chakjohra, P.S. Dhanarua, District-Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. UMA KANT VERMA Mr. V.K.Sinha Mr. Pandit Jee Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. RAKESH KUMAR Mr. Virendra Kumar Mr. Anirudh Mishra =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH CAV JUDGMENT Date: 27. 08-2013 This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree of the appellate court below reversing the decree of the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. The sole plaintiff Shripal Mahto [since deceased, through L.R.], filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 24.10.1962 in favour of Shyam Sundari Devi and the gift deed dated 7.3.1964 in favour of Shyam Sundari Devi and her husband Ram Jatan Mahto, purported to have been executed by him, were forged, fabricated and void documents. It appears that after the death of the original plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit, the substituted heirs were allowed to amend the plaint by adding the relief for passing an appropriate decree for partition of the shares of the plaintiffs and also for recovery of possession over the same.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 3 3. As the factual matrix of the case would unveil, the suit property admittedly belonged to the original plaintiff Shripal Mahto. It is also admitted that the original plaintiff Shripal Mahto had two daughters, namely, Mundari Devi and Shyam Sundari Devi. Defendant No. 1 in the suit is the husband of Shyam Sundari Devi (since deceased) and defendant no. 2 to 5 are her sons and daughters. The original plaintiff Shripal Mahto had been substituted after his death by his widow Most. Chetia Devi and another daughter Mundari Devi. 4. The plaintiff Shripal Mahto accepted in the plaint that his daughter Shyam Sundari Devi and her husband (defendant no. 1) used to reside with him, and her husband used to look after his affairs including cultivation etc. It was, however, his case that during his illness, the defendant no. 1, on the pretext of getting a power of attorney executed in his favour, got executed a sale deed on 24.10.1962 with regard to the land mentioned in schedule-A of the plaint by the plaintiff in favour of Shyam Sundari Devi. It was further alleged that subsequently after a lapse of nearly two years, defendant no. 1 represented that there were some errors in the previously executed power of attorney and a fresh power of attorney was required to be executed and thereafter on that pretext, he got a gift deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of Shyam Sundari Devi as well as in his favour for the land mentioned in schedule-B of the Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 4 plaint. The plaintiff specifically alleged that he executed those two deeds and admitted execution thereof before the registering authority under the impression that he had executed the deeds of power of attorney in favour of the defendant no. 1. In sequence, the plaintiff has further come out with the case that subsequently nearly after seven years he learnt about those two deeds i.e. the sale deed and the gift deed and thereafter he executed two separate cancellation deeds cancelling the sale deed and the gift deed. 5. The suit was contested by the defendant no. 1 by filing written statement wherein he claimed valid execution of the sale deed and the gift deed and denied the allegation of misrepresentation and fraud played by him and his deceased wife Shyam Sundari Devi upon the plaintiff. It was asserted that the sale deed was executed by
Legal Reasoning
Shripal Mahto in favour of his daughter Shyam Sundari Devi as he urgently required funds for meeting necessary expenses, and about two years thereafter he willingly executed the gift deed in favour of his daughter Shyam Sundari Devi as well as his son-in-law the defendant no. 1. It was pleaded that after the execution of the sale deed and gift deed the defendant no. 1 and his wife came in possession and had been dealing with the lands transferred to them by the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the execution of the gift deed and sale deed was known to all the villagers. The story of illness of Shripal Mahto and the case of getting the sale deed executed on the Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 5 pretext of the execution of a power of attorney and the case of subsequent gift deed on the pretext of errors in the previously executed power of attorney had been categorically denied. It was asserted that the suit had been filed at the instance of the second daughter of the plaintiff Shripal Mahto and her husband with malafide intention. It was also stated that after the execution of the sale deed and the gift deed for the suit land, the names of Shyam Sundari Devi and the defendant no. 1 had also been mutated in accordance with law. The defendant had also claimed that the parts of the purchased and the gifted lands had already been sold by Shyam Sundari Devi, her heirs and the defendant no. 1, and the purchasers were in possession of their respective purchased land. 6. The trial court decreed the suit with the finding that the sale deed and the gift deed in question executed by Shripal Mahto in favour of his daughter Shyam Sundari Devi and his son-in-law (defendant no. 1) were not genuine documents and thus void. The defendants took exception to the judgment of the trial court by filing the appeal. The appellate court below, on reappraisal of the pleadings and evidence, has come to the finding that the sale deed and the gift deed in question are valid, genuine and operative documents and has further held that the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly the appeal has been allowed and the decree of the trial court has been set aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate court has been Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 6 assailed by filing this second appeal. 7. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the reasonings of the trial court, while reversing its judgment? (ii) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated on account of its assumption of wrong perspective and placing wrong onus of proof on the shoulder of the plaintiff on the point of proof of execution of the sale deed and the deed of gift? (iii) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated on account of non-consideration of all the documents of plaintiff which have been relied upon by the trial court? (iv) Whether in particular, the judgment of the court below is absolutely perverse on the point of limitation where he has Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 7 assumed knowledge of informant to be the knowledge of plaintiff and has held the suit to have been abated by limitation? 8. Criticizing the impugned judgment, Mr. U.K. Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the appellate court has erred in law in not considering the reasonings assigned by the trial court which granted the decree to the plaintiffs. It has been urged that an appeal is a valuable right of a party and therefore the mandate of law requires the appellate court to consider each and every reasoning of the trial court before reversing its findings. It has been further submitted that the appellate court has also not considered all the documentary evidence of the plaintiffs and therefore its conclusions are vitiated. It has been argued that the documentary evidence of the plaintiffs fully established the case that the sale deed and the gift deed in question were obtained by fraudulently misrepresenting the facts by the defendants. It has been canvassed that the appellate court below has approached the case with wrong perspective and has also applied wrong principles as it has remained oblivious of the fact that it is always difficult to plead and established every aspect of fraud. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that the fraud is a secret working of mind of the person and therefore the inference from the surrounding Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 8 circumstances assumes importance while investigating the allegation of fraud. It has been emphasized that the appellate court below has ignored the settled principle that the burden of proof lies on the beneficiary of the documents alleged to have been obtained by fraud, to establish the bonafide nature of the transaction, but in the present case the appellate court below has wrongly placed the said burden on the plaintiff. The learned counsel has further propounded that the question of limitation has been also wrongly decided on the basis of wrong finding that Shripal Mahto had the knowledge of the sale deed and the gift deed much prior to the filing of the suit. The learned counsel has extensively placed the evidence on record in order to elaborate the contention that the conclusions of the appellate court below are not reasonable. 9. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, at the outset has submitted that the scope of reappreciation of evidence is limited in the second appellate jurisdiction to a case where the findings by the appellate court are perverse in any manner, and no reappreciation of evidence can be done for overturning a finding because another view is a possibility. It has been further submitted that the appellate court below has extensively scrutinized the evidence of the parties before reaching to the findings and therefore it cannot be said that the findings are perverse. It has been argued that there is no requirement in law that Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 9 the appellate court must discuss each and every reasoning of the trial court before recording its contrary findings and all that is required is that the appellate court while reversing the findings, must be conscious of the reasonings of the trial court. It has been further submitted that the sale deed and the gift deed in question have been assailed on the ground of misrepresentation of the nature of those deeds but there is absolutely no evidence to establish the said fact rather the another fact is significantly apparent that Shripal Mahto never dealt with the lands covered by the sale deed and the gift deed in question after executing those deeds. It has been also submitted that according to the settled principle, the burden of proof always lies upon the party who alleges the fraud except in cases of disabilities, and in the present case as the plaintiffs have failed to establish that Shripal Mahto was labouring under some disability, the burden of proof to establish the fraud as alleged was clearly upon the plaintiffs which they failed to discharge. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the validity of the sale deed and the gift deed in question is also supported by the fact that the purchaser and donees dealt with those properties by several transactions thereafter. It has been also pointed out that admittedly the defendant no. 1 or his wife Shyam Sundari Devi had no land in the said village and it is difficult to accept that Shripal Mahto could not have knowledge of the transactions by the defendant-purchaser and the donees by mortgage Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 10 and sale of the suit properties ranging for almost 9 years before the filing of the suit. It has been argued that the suit has in fact filed by Shripal Mahto at the instance of his second daughter only with purpose to harass the defendants. 10. Admittedly, Shripal Mahto was the owner of the suit property. He had two daughters namely Shyam Sundari Devi and Mundari Devi. The elder daughter Shyam Sundari Devi was married with Ramjatan Mahto who is the defendant no. 1 in the suit. It is also admitted fact that the eldest daughter Shyam Sundari Devi along with her husband Ramjatan Mahto used to reside in her Naiher with her parents and the younger daughter Mundari Devi used to reside in her Sasural with her husband. Shripal Mahto filed the suit challenging the sale deed dated 24.10.1962 and gift deed dated 07.03.1964 and sought the declaration that those two deeds were illegal and void on the basis of the assertion that he did not execute the said two deeds consciously, knowing the true nature of the transactions and alleged that the two deeds were fraudulently obtained by his son-in-law (defendant no. 1); the sale deed was obtained firstly on the pretext of getting a Mokhtarnama in his favour and thereafter the gift deed was obtained on the pretext of getting another Mokhtarnama on the ground of mistake in the previous executed Mokhtarnama. 11. From the averments in the plaint, it transpires that the plaintiff Shripal Mahto had stated that he fell seriously ill due to Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 11 typhoid in the rainy season of the year 1962 and became mentally and physically weak. It has been further averred that the defendant no. 1 taking benefit of his weak mental and physical condition, prevailed upon him to execute a Mokhtarnama in his favour for the management of his properties. It has also been alleged that the defendant no. 1 forcibly obtained his thumb impression on blank papers and also made him to admit the execution of the deed before the registering authority. However, it is nowhere the case of the plaintiff Shripal Mahto that he had been a person of weak intellect from the very beginning and it is also not his case that after the episode of typhoid in the year 1962 making him physically and mentally weak, he never regained his physical and mental strength and continued to be weak throughout thereafter. To the contrary, the evidence on record demonstrate that the plaintiff Shripal Mahto had been making transactions of his properties much prior to the year 1962 and had executed several deeds dealing with his properties. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff has deposed regarding weak intellect of Shripal Mahto rather his widow, substituted as plaintiff no. 1 in the suit after his death and examined as P.W. 1 in the suit, has stated that Shripal Mahto used to go to court for his work. The appellate court below after the scrutiny of the evidence has come to the conclusion that even though Shripal Mahto was not a well educated person but nonetheless he had experience of executing a Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 12 good number of deeds prior to the alleged documents and it was not a natural conduct of such a person to have executed the documents in question and admitting the execution before the registering authority without getting knowledge of the nature of the deed. 12. There is also no direct evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff that Shripal Mahto fell seriously ill due to typhoid in the rainy season of 1962 and became physically and mentally weak. This aspect assumes importance because the plaintiff Shripal Mahto had taken the ground of his serious illness leading to mental weakness as the reason for his becoming ready to execute a Mokhtarnama in favour of the defendant no. 1 for managing his properties. The plaintiff no. 1 Most Chetiya Devi has deposed as P.W. 3 that she has no evidence of illness of her husband at the time of execution of the sale deed and the gift deed. She has also accepted that he was treated by an allopathic doctor in the village but was not taken to the government hospital which was situated at a distance of one ‘kose’ (almost two miles) from the village and had not been hospitalized. The P.W.-4 Rambilas Gope, who has claimed himself to be ‘Barahil’ (agricultural servant) of Shripal Mahto has deposed that his employer suffered from stomach pain 18 years ago and became bedridden and weak. The P.W.-13 Vidya Prasad, who is another son-in-law of Shripal Mahto, however, has not deposed regarding the serious illness of Shripal Mahto due to typhoid in the rainy season of the year 1962. Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 13 He has also denied information regarding treatment of his father-in- law when he fell ill between 1962-66 although he had accepted that he visited him during those years. The appellate court below has evaluated the case of serious illness of Shripal Mahto in the year 1962 as claimed in the plaint and after considering the evidence led by the parties, it has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the said fact. 13. In absence of the case of the plaintiff Shripal Mahto that he was a person of weak intellect from the very beginning or that he continued to have mental weakness after 1962, there is no difficulty in accepting that Shripal Mahto was a person of sound mind and was managing his properties on his own. These facts are also pronouncedly reflected from his conduct because, even though his son-in-law (defendant no. 1) was admittedly residing with him before 1962, he did not feel the necessity to execute a Mokhtarnama earlier in his favour for managing his properties. The two deeds of cancellnama executed by him in the year 1971 also militate against the continuing weak mental state of the plaintiff Shripal Mahto. There is also no pleading or evidence that the plaintiff Shripal Mahto after executing the deed in the year 1962-64 ever made an inquiry for almost nine years from his son-in-law (defendant no. 1) who resided with him throughout, regarding any steps taken by him (defendant no. 1) for the managements of the properties on the basis of the Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 14 Mokhtarnama. There is also no pleading or evidence that any step was taken by Shripal Mahto to revoke the Mokhtarnama after he recovered from his physical and mental weakness or any time before 1971. 14. The defendants have brought in evidence several mortgage deeds and sale deeds executed by late Shyam Sundari Devi and the defendant no. 1 which have been marked as Exts. A-9, G/5, G/1, G/2 and G/3 and all these deeds are registered documents. The plaintiff Shripal Mahto has stated in the plaint that he had no earlier knowledge of the sale deed and the gift deed in question prior to 1971 but this statement loses its trustworthiness in view of the deposition of the P.W. 4 Rambilash Gope who has claimed himself to be the ‘Barahil’ (agricultural servant) of Shripal Mahto and has also stated that his brother has purchased the land from Most. Chetiya Devi after the death of Shripal Mahto. This witness has stated that the entire village came to know that Ramjatan Mahto had got transferred the agricultural land from Shripal Mahto. His testimony reads as follows:- "…… ……" The aforesaid statement by the P.W. 4, who is an old employee of the plaintiff Shripal Mahto, reveals, at the least, that the said employee had the knowledge of the sale by Shripal Mahto to Ramjatan Mahto in the year 1962-64 which were the two occasions, Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 15 as referred by the P.W. 4, when Ramjatan Mahto took Shripal Mahto to Masaudhi. This factual scenario leads to the unmistakable inference that Shripal Mahto was a man of sound mind and he had executed the sale deed and gift deed in question in favour of his elder daughter Shyam Sundari Devi and the defendant no. 1 Ramjatan Mahto. 15. Much emphasis has been led by the learned counsel for the appellant on the illiteracy of Shripal Mahto for the purpose of raising presumption of undue influence exercised over him by the defendant no. 1. However, the appellate court below has scanned the evidence in this regard and has also particularly taken in notice the Ext. G which is a Rehan deed dated 17.09.1959 and Ext. A/15 which is a sale deed dated 17.09.1959. These are registered documents executed by Shripal Mahto with regard to some of his lands wherein he had put his signature, instead of thumb impression. The appellate court has come to the finding on the basis of appreciation of evidence that Shripal Mahto was not an illiterate person. 16. Much hype has been sought to be created on the ground that the sale deed and gift deed in question bear the thumb impression of plaintiff Shripal Mahto and there is no pleading by the defendants for their case that Shripal Mahto had put his thumb impression because his hands were trembling. The reliance has also been placed on serial no. 126 of the ‘Instructions and Orders’ issued with regard to registration of documents (but wrongly mentioned as Rule 126 by the Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 16 learned court below). A perusal of the instruction at serial no. 126 shows that it is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case and is applicable only in a case where a person who has executed a document by putting his signature but has become unable to sign the endorsement thereafter, then the registering authority may allow him to fix his marks on the endorsement after taking a statement from that person explaining his inability to do so. In the present case, however, the thumb impression on the disputed deeds had not been denied by the plaintiff Shripal Mahto who had also admitted the execution of the deeds before the registering authority and in this view of the matter, the appellate court has rightly negatived the submission on behalf of the plaintiffs. 17. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the court below has wrongly placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs whereas the defendants being beneficiaries were required to establish the genuineness of the gift deeds. The reliance has been placed on the decision of this court in the case of BiBi Jaibunnisa Vs. Abdul Ghaffor A.I.R. 1984 Pat. 257 but from the said decision, it appears that the said case related to a Pardanasin lady and the principle in that regard has been dealt with. The facts of the present case depict an entirely different scenario where a man of full age and sound mind has challenged the deeds purported to have been executed by him by which he has denuded himself of his property. As such person is Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 17 bound by his own act and if he comes to have the deeds set aside, the burden of proof clearly lies on him to establish substantial reasons for setting aside or declaring those deeds as void documents. It is not in each and every case where a transaction relating to immovable property is assailed on ground of fraud that the burden of proof of the validity and legality of the transaction lies upon the beneficiary. The exceptions are only the cases where the transferor establishes disability or a prima-facie case of fraud and only then the burden of showing that the transaction is fair lies upon the party who seeks to uphold it. The fact-finding court in the present case has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Shripal Mahto was not working under the disability as claimed, and as such he was required to prove his allegation of fraud against the defendants in obtaining the two deeds in question, beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The submission on behalf of the appellant that the transfers in question were unconscionable as the plaintiff Shripal Mahto could not be expected to deny the share in his property to his another daughter and also to have overlooked the interest of his wife. It has been also argued that the dominating position of his elder daughter Shyam Sundari Devi and his son-in-law (defendant no. 1) on him should not have been ignored. However, the principle in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. C.M. Patel, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 712 where their Lordship Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 18 have laid down as follows:- “………..It is well settled that fraud like any other charge of a criminal offence whether made in civil or criminal proceedings, must be established beyond reasonable doubt: per Lord Atkin in A.L.N. Narayanan Chettyar Vs. Official Assignee, High Court Rangoon, A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 93. However, suspicious may be the circumstances, however strange the coincidences, and however grave the doubts, suspicion alone can never take the place of proof………” Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principle along with the testimony of the plaintiff no. 1 as P.W. 3 deposing that she and her husband had more liking for elder daughter, I do not find substance in the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant for overturning the findings of fact by the appellate court on this score. 19. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellate court has not met the reasonings of the trial court while reversing its findings. However, I do not find any mandate of law requiring an appellate court while passing a judgment of reversal to consider each and every reasoning assigned by the trial court. The utmost which is required from the appellate court is that it must be conscious of the reasonings of the trial court and must give its own reasons in support of its findings. The conclusions by the appellate court may be erroneous and the possibility of a second view may not Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 19 be ruled out but that cannot be a substantial question of law which can properly be made the subject matter of second appeal. The Apex Court in the case of Arumugham Vs. Sundarambal 1999 (4) S.C.C. 350 has also held that the second appellate court cannot reverse the judgment of the first appellate court below on the ground that the first appellate court has not adverted to all the reasons given by the trial court or it has not come to close grips with the reasonings of the trial court. Although, on behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the appellate court has not considered the material evidence of the plaintiff but during the course of argument, it could not be pointed out as to which particular material evidence has been ignored by the appellate court. To the contrary, it is vivid from the judgment of the appellate court that it has considered the material oral and documentary evidence of the parties before recording its findings. I do not find perversity in any manner in the impugned judgment and decree on this score. 20. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellate court below has wrongly held the suit to be barred by limitation. It is well settled that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The plaintiff Shripal Mahto, though has alleged fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants with regard to the nature of the deeds in question but has failed to establish the same. There is also no explanation on behalf of the plaintiff as to Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 20 why a stony silence was maintained by him for almost 9 years before executing the cancellation deeds and filing the suit even when, according to the deposition of P.W. 4, the entire village came to know about the transactions in question. The several transactions by way of mortgage and sale through registered documents by his daughter and his son-in-law after the purchase and the gift also cannot be ignored when admittedly they were living along with the plaintiff and they had no land of their own in the village. The fact also cannot be ignored that after executing the gift deed in the year 1964 up to the cancellation deed in the year 1971 the plaintiff Shripal Mahto did not enter into any transaction for his properties and also did not make any inquiry with regard to any step taken by his son-in-law (defendant no. 1) in whose favour he claimed to have executed a Mokhtarnama. The plaintiff Shripal Mahto also did not raise any objection when the names of his daughter Shyam Sundari Devi and the son-in-law Ramjatan Mahto (defendant no. 1) were mutated with regard to the property purchased and gifted to them. The appellate court below has meticulously examined the evidence in this regard and has come to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation as the same has not been filed within three years of the execution of the sale deed and gift deed in question and the plaintiffs have failed to establish the case of subsequent knowledge of those documents as set up by them. 21. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, the substantial Patna High Court SA No.257 of 1992 dt.27-08-2013 21 questions of law are answered against the appellant. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate court below is upheld. There shall, however, be