Judgment 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed for declaration that the disputed land described in Sch. 3 of the plaint is the purchased Kast land of the plaintiff, while the land of Sch. 5 is in her possession on the basis of a Mahadanama by way of part performance of contract and the defendants have no concern with the same. A prayer was also made that it be declared that the deed of gift from defendant No. 1 is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff. Another relief that was sought for was for a decree confirming the possession of the plaintiff over the properties described in Schedules 3 and 5 of the plaint and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. 2. Shortly stated, the case of the plaintiff was that Ram Prasad Singh died in jointness with Ramjit Singh and sons of Kanhai Singh about 50 years ago sometime in the year 1926. It is said that Ramjit Singh and Kanhai Singhs sons came in possession of the properties held by Ram Prasad Singh by virtue of survivorship as his wife Asbhaga Kuer was only a maintenance holder. Further according to the plaintiff, there was a partition between Ranjit Singh and sons of Kanhai Singh in the year 1931 and as a result of that partition the properties were divided half and half. Schedule 1 to the plaint details the properties allotted to the Takhta of Ranjit Singh whereas Schedule 2 mentions the properties in the line of Kanhai Singh. Schedule 2 properties were again subjected to partition with which we are not concerned in this litigation. The plaintiff claims that she acquired Schedule 3 properties by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14-3-1951 executed by Ranjit Singh in favour of the plaintiff. This land mentions 6 bighas 12 kathas 17 dhurs. This sale according to the plaintiff was in the Benami name of Raghubansh but he never came in possession and the plaintiff, who was the real purchaser was put in possession. With regard to Schedule 5 properties, it was said that Ranjit Singh intended to transfer the land covered under this schedule to the plaintiff. There was a contract between the parties to that effect and a Mahadanama was executed. Part of the consideration was also paid and the plaintiff was put in possession. With regard to Schedule 5 properties, it was said that Ranjit Singh intended to transfer the land covered under this schedule to the plaintiff. There was a contract between the parties to that effect and a Mahadanama was executed. Part of the consideration was also paid and the plaintiff was put in possession. But before a sale deed could be executed, he died issueless sometime in the year 1965. With regard to Schedule 4 properties, the plaintiffs case was that the transfer made by Asbhaga Kuer in favour of defendant No. 1 was illegal, void as she was only a maintenance holder and as such, was not competent to transfer any part of the properties left by Ram Prasad Singh. Further according to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 set up an imposture and got a deed of gift executed and registered purporting to have been executed by Asbhaga Kuer. 3. The suit was contested by the appellants. Their defence inter alia, was that Ram Prasad died in 1940 while he was separate from this brothers, and, as such, it was said that his widow Asbhaga Kuer was not a mere maintenance holder but was a limited owner. till 1956 and thereafter she became absolute owner. On that basis it was said that she was competent to deal with the properties. With regard to Schedule 3 properties, the sale deed dated 14-3-1951 was described as forged and fabricated. It was also said that Ranjit Singh had no right to alienate these properties as the land covered by the sale deed dated 14-3-1951 did not fall in his Takhta on partition. The Mahadanama covering Schedule 5, properties was also described as fabrication. It was said that neither any consideration passed under this Mahadanama nor the plaintiff was put in possession of the properties covered by it. Schedule 4 properties which were said to have been gifted by Asbhaga Kuer in favour of defendant No. 1 on 14-4-1952 was said to be genuine legal and valid. It was again stated that Ram Prasad Singh having died in separation, Asbhaga Kuer came in possession of the properties and, as such, was competent to pass on the properties by way of gift to defendant No. 1. It was again stated that Ram Prasad Singh having died in separation, Asbhaga Kuer came in possession of the properties and, as such, was competent to pass on the properties by way of gift to defendant No. 1. The other significant defence was the incompetency of the suit on account of non-joinder of Mahali (who was examined as D.W. 6 and gave her name as Raj Mahal, daughter of Ranjit Singh). 4. The trial court decreed the suit with respect to Schedule 4 properties holding that Ram Prasad Singh died in the year 1926 in state of jointness. With regard to Sch. 3 properties, the trial Court found that the sale deed dated 14-3-1951 was not genuine as no consideration was paid to Ranjit Singh. It also found that the plaintiff never came in possession on the basis of that sale deed. With respect to the land covered under Sch. 5, the trial court was of the view that the Mahadanama was suspicious in nature and the plaintiff did not come in possession on the basis of the same. It, therefore, decreed the suit with respect to the land covered by Sch. 4, but dismissed the same with respect to the lands mentioned in Sch. 3 and Schedule 5 lands. 5. Two appeals were preferred before the lower appellants court, one by the plaintiff against the part of the decree by which her suit was dismissed with respect to the land covered under Sch. 3 and Sch. 5. The other appeal was preferred by the defendant appellants with respect to the land covered under Sch. 4. The lower appellate court affirmed the decree with respect to Sch. 4 properties and held that Ram Prasad Singh died in the year 1926, while he was joint. It, therefore, upheld that claim of the plaintiff respondent that she was entitled to a decree for declaration with respect to the land covered under this schedule. With respect to Sch. 3 properties, the court of appeal below disagreeing with the trial court came to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 14-3-1951 was genuine and valid. It accordingly decreed the suit with respect to Sch. 3 properties also. The Mahadanama which was the subject matter of Sch. With respect to Sch. 3 properties, the court of appeal below disagreeing with the trial court came to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 14-3-1951 was genuine and valid. It accordingly decreed the suit with respect to Sch. 3 properties also. The Mahadanama which was the subject matter of Sch. 5 properties which was held to be not genuine by the trial court was set aside and it was also held that since Raj Mahal, the daughter of Ranjit Singh was not impleaded as a party to the suit, therefore, it was not possible to give any relief with respect to the land covered by the Mahadanama. Under the circumstances, the lower appellate court did not record any finding with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the Mahadanama. 6. The appellants filed this appeal against the part of the decree covering Sch. 3 and 4 lands. Objection was filed by the respondents with respect to the land covered by Sch. 5. The cross-objection, however, has been dismissed as barred by limitation. Therefore, the only subject matter of appeal is now the land covered by Schedules 3 and 4 of the plaint. From what I have stated earlier, it will appear that the finding of the court below is that Ram Prasad Singh died in the year 1926 in state of jointness and that the sale deed dated 14-3-1951 executed by Ranjit Singh was a valid and genuine document. Mr. Shreenath Singh very strenuously urged that these findings are erroneous in law on account of improper consideration of evidence and also on account of the fact that while reversing the finding with regard to Sch. 3 properties the lower appellate court did not meet the reasonings given by the trial court. But in spite of his ingenuity, I Cannot persuade myself to agree with his submission. The findings referred to above are pure findings of fact and are binding on me in second appeal. I may, however, at this stage mention that Mr. Shreenath Singh urged that this litigation will not finally resolve the dispute between the parties on account of non-joinder of Raj Mahal, the daughter of Ranjit Singh. Perhaps, what he wants to say is that the suit should be dismissed on account of non-joinder. The question of defect of party should have been raised at the earlier opportunity so that the defect could-have been rectified. Perhaps, what he wants to say is that the suit should be dismissed on account of non-joinder. The question of defect of party should have been raised at the earlier opportunity so that the defect could-have been rectified. It is not possible now to dismiss the suit on that account on the basis of argument raised for the first time in second appeal. May be that on account of non-joinder of Raj Mahal the decree may not bind her but so far as the appellants are concerned, it will certainly be binding on them. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed, but without costs.