JUDGMENT This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.6.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Deoghar, in Title Appeal No. 11 of 2000 affirming the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2000 passed by the learned Sub Judge-V, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 60 of 1986/263 of 1987. 2. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff-appellants for declaration that (i) the sale deeds dated 16.7.1986 and30.8.1986 executed by defendant No. 2 and 3 respectively is illegal, void and inoperative, (ii) the sale deed dated 23.11.1981 executed by plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant second party in favour of defendant first party, is a deed of mortgage and not a deed of conditional sale and under this document no absolute title and ownership was passed to defendant first party, and (iii) for declaring the right of preemption in favour of the plaintiffs and directing defendant first party to execute absolute sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on receiving proportionate amount of value of defendant second party. 3. Mr. Shivnath, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgments onvarious grounds. He further submitted that interpretation of document is involved in this appeal, which is a substantial question of law. Referring to Pragraph-15 (at page-15 of the lower appellate court judgment), he further submitted that in spite of clear pleadings made in Paragraph-11 of the Plaint, the lower appellate court observed that there was no pleading and wrongly ignored the evidence in support of such pleading. He also relied on (1999) 3 SCC 573 Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another. 4. In Paragraph-11 of the plaint it was said-that although the deed dated 23.11.1981 was described conditionalsale deed, but actually it is a mortgage deed and the defendant first party was fully aware that he is possessing the suit property as mortgagee and not as an absolute owner as no absolute title passed to him by the said deed dated 23.11.1981. 5. The parties contested on the issue, whether the said sale deed dated 23.11.1985 was a conditional sale ormortgage. After considering the stipulations therein and the materials brought on record by the parties, it was concurrently held by both the courts below that it was a conditional sale deed and not a mortgage. 5. The parties contested on the issue, whether the said sale deed dated 23.11.1985 was a conditional sale ormortgage. After considering the stipulations therein and the materials brought on record by the parties, it was concurrently held by both the courts below that it was a conditional sale deed and not a mortgage. In this context the said observation has been made by the lower appellant court saying, inter alia, that the plaintiff has not pleaded as to how and in what circumstances, the said deed dated 23.11.1981 was executed as mortgage deed. In my opinion, such observation is not material and it will not affect the findings arrived at by both the courts below. In the case of C. Cheriathan v. P. Narayanan Embranthiri, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 673 it is, inter alia, held that intention of the parties must be gathered from the document itself and the attending circumstance. 6. The case relied by Mr. Shivnath is not applicable in the present case. 7. In my opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs.