ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree dated 13-11-2009 passed in Title Appeal No. 09/2004/ 65/2005 by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.-III), Aurangabad whereby he has set aside the judgement and decree dated 30-04-2004 passed in Title Suit No. 125/1988/ 139/2003 by learned Subordinate Judge- IV, Aurangabad whereby he had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent. 3. The appellants were defendants before the trial court. The parties are being described in the present order as per their party position in the said Title Suit No. 125/1988/ 139/2003. 4. The plaintiffs filed the title suit for a declaration that the gift deed executed by one Munshi Dusadh dated 14-05-1982 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 was fraudulent and they did not derive any right, title and interest over the suit property under the said fraudulent deed of gift. The plaintiff also sought for a declaration that the vendors of the suit land, who transferred the same to the plaintiff through the sale deeds, were rightful owners to execute the sale deeds in his favour. As per the case of the plaintiff, Bisambhar Dusadh of village Kera under Aurangabad district owned and possessed the suit land as described in schedule-I at the foot of the plaint. Bisambhar Dusadh died leaving behind three sons namely, Judagir Dusadh, Musafir Dusadh and Munshi Dusadh. After the death of Bisambhar Dusadh his three sons came in possession over the property belonging to Bisambhar Dusadh. Judagir Dusadh had one son, namely Rameshwar Ram and Musafir Dusadh had also one son, namely Hari Ram. Munshi Dusadh had two daughters, Gulabiya Devi and Gangiya Devi. Gulabiya Devi died leaving behind her son Badri Paswan and husband Siyaram Paswan. Munshi Dusadh died on 11-05-1982 leaving behind his daughter Gangiya Devi and grand son Badri Paswan, son of his pre deceased daughter, Gulabiya Devi and, thus, Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan inherited right, title and interest of all movable and immovable property left by Munshi Dusadh. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that Gangiya Devi, daughter of Munshi Dusadh, who was working in Saldih Colliery, received all the death cum post retirement dues which was outstanding in the name of Munshi Dusadh. 6. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that Gangiya Devi, daughter of Munshi Dusadh, who was working in Saldih Colliery, received all the death cum post retirement dues which was outstanding in the name of Munshi Dusadh. 6. According to plaintiff, names of Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan were mutated in the Anchal office over the property which belonged to Munshi Dusadh. They sold the property as described in schedule-II to the plaint after receiving consideration money through registered sale deeds dated 08-05-1987 bearing deed Nos. 4979 and 4980 of 1987 whereafter the plaintiff was put in possession over the purchased land. 7. As per the plaintiff cause of action arose when the defendants/ appellants herein attempted to have possession over the property purchased by the plaintiffs from Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan. It is further case of the plaintiffs that in course of such attempt and resistance by the plaintiffs, the defendants for the first time in January, 1988 claimed that they had got a deed of gift executed in their favour from Munshi Dusadh but they did not disclose the date and year of execution of such deed of gift. Only on enquiry the plaintiff could learn that the defendants had prepared a deed of gift dated 14-05-1982 allegedly executed by Munshi Dusadh in respect of his 1/3rd share in favour of the defendants/ appellants. 8. This is to be noted that appellants are grand sons of Judagir Dusadh. The plaintiff is said to have obtained the certified copy of the alleged deed of gift dated 14-05-1982. There is a recital in the alleged deed of gift to the effect that Munshi Dusadh was not blessed with any issue either male or female and, therefore, in consideration of the services rendered by the defendants he executed the said deed on 14-05-1982 giving his 1/3rd share to the defendants. 9. It was in this background that the plaintiff questioned the deed of gift dated 14-05-1982 as illegal, sham, imaginary and fraudulent. Making out a specific case that the deed of gift was out and out fabricated and fraudulent, the plaintiff filed the suit challenging the said deed of gift dated 14-05-1982. The plaintiff also claimed that when Munshi Dusadh died on 11-05-1982, there could be no deed of gift on a subsequent date, that is, 14-05-1982. 10. Making out a specific case that the deed of gift was out and out fabricated and fraudulent, the plaintiff filed the suit challenging the said deed of gift dated 14-05-1982. The plaintiff also claimed that when Munshi Dusadh died on 11-05-1982, there could be no deed of gift on a subsequent date, that is, 14-05-1982. 10. The defendants, on the other hand, contested the suit and filed their written statement. The defendants claimed that the three sons of Bisambhar Dusadh were separate and they were dealing their shares separately. The defendants claimed that Munshi Dusadh was not blessed with daughters as alleged and also disputed that Munshi Dusadh died on 11-05-1982. 11. The defendants further claimed that the sale deeds Nos. 4979 and 4980 of 1987, alleged to have been executed by Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan in favour of the plaintiffs, were in fact fraudulent, sham and inoperative and without any consideration amount. They specifically pleaded that the vendors of the plaintiffs never inherited the suit property and they had no right to execute the sale deeds in respect of the suit land. According to defendants, the deed of gift was validly made in their favour. 12. This is to be noted that Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan were impleaded as defendants No.3 and 4 in the title suit who supported the case of the plaintiffs. 13. On the basis of rival pleadings the trial court framed altogether six issues including issues No. iv and v which read as follows:– “(iv) Is the alleged deed of gift dated 14-05-1982 said to have been executed by Munshi Dusadh, in favour of defendant No.1 is valid, legal and correct document? (v) Is the sale deed executed by Gangiya Devi in favour of plaintiffs is valid, genuine, legal and correct document?” 14. Thereafter, the evidence were led, both oral and documentary, by both the parties. After considering the evidence on record, while dealing with issue No. iv, learned trial court came to specific finding that the alleged deed of gift dated 14-05-1982 was illegal, invalid and false document. Learned trial court at the same time held, dealing with issue No. v, that the sale deed executed by Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan in favour of the plaintiffs was also not valid, operative and genuine document. 15. Learned trial court at the same time held, dealing with issue No. v, that the sale deed executed by Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan in favour of the plaintiffs was also not valid, operative and genuine document. 15. An appeal was preferred against the judgement and decree passed by learned trial court by the plaintiffs. This is important to note here that defendants did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the trial court to the effect that the deed of gift dated 14-05-1982 was illegal, invalid and false document. On the basis of the grounds taken before the first appellate court on behalf of the appellants as well as the submission made on behalf of the defendants, learned first appellate court formulated the following two points for consideration:– “(i) Whether the sale deed No. 4979 and 4980 dated 08-05-1987 executed by Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan in favour of plaintiff/ appellant is valid and genuine document? (ii) Whether the deed of gift dated 14-05-1982 alleged to have been executed by Munshi Dusadh in favour of defendant/respondent No.1 and 2 Randhir Ram and Bindu Kumar Ranjan is valid and genuine document and the same was executed by Munshi Dusadh?” 16. From the judgement of the first appellate court under challenge, it appears that after considering the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence available on record, it came to a finding that Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan had executed the sale deeds and transferred the title in favour of the plaintiffs. It took into account the admission made by the Gangiya Devi in her written statement as regards her receiving the consideration money from the plaintiffs. Learned first appellate court took into account the plea on behalf of the appellants herein to the effect that no consideration amount was paid to Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan. Considering the admission made on behalf of Gangiya Devi in her written statement as well as her statement on oath that she sold the land to the plaintiffs, learned first appellate court came to a finding that the sale deed of Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan dated 08-05-1987 was valid, legal, genuine and operative document. Learned first appellate court, thus, reversed the findings of learned trial court regarding the sale deeds dated 08-05-1987. 17. Learned first appellate court, thus, reversed the findings of learned trial court regarding the sale deeds dated 08-05-1987. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that learned first appellate court committed gross error of law in holding the sale deed dated 08-05-1987 to be void as there was sufficient material on record as evidence before the trial court to demonstrate that the consideration amount was in fact not paid and, therefore, such sale cannot be said to be operative. He would further submit that there being jointness in the family, the property could not have been sold by Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan. He would also submit that there being no description of the land which was subject matter of transfer by the said deed dated 08-05-1987, the same could not be said to be valid, genuine and operative. Learned counsel for the appellants would, therefore, submit that the present case involved a substantial question of law inasmuch as while setting aside the judgement of learned trial court, learned first appellate court has not assigned the reasons for reversing the findings of the trial court. 18. As has been indicated hereinabove, the case of the defendants who are appellants herein, was largely based on their claim on the basis of gift deed dated 14-05-1982 said to have been executed by Munshi Dusadh in their favour. The said gift deed had been held to be illegal by learned trial court itself. The said finding of learned trial court was never questioned by the appellants as no appeal was filed on their behalf against such finding. This would mean that the appellants accepted the findings of learned trial court to the extent it declared the gift deed dated 14-05-1982 to be illegal, invalid and inoperative. 19. So far as validity of sale deed dated 08-05-1987 executed by Gangiya Devi and Badri Paswan in favour of the plaintiffs is concerned, learned first appellate court came to a finding that consideration amount was paid. Learned first appellate court has taken into account the statement made by Gangiya Devi in her written statement wherein she had stated of having received the consideration money. This is to be noted that learned first appellate court also took into account her statement in course of trial that in fact the consideration amount was not given to her. Learned first appellate court has taken into account the statement made by Gangiya Devi in her written statement wherein she had stated of having received the consideration money. This is to be noted that learned first appellate court also took into account her statement in course of trial that in fact the consideration amount was not given to her. Further, learned first appellate court, on the basis of other evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the consideration amount was paid and except one statement of Gangiya Devi there was no material to controvert the fact that the consideration amount was paid. In any view of the matter, learned first appellate court dealing with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Premnarayan & Others Vs. Kunwarji & Others, AIR 1993 M.P. 164 came to the finding, as noted above, on the basis of intention of the parties to sale the suit property. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 6 SCC 555 (Janak Dulari Devi & anr. Vs. Kapildeo Rai & anr) to contend that in the absence of strict proof of payment of consideration money, sale cannot be treated to be valid and operative. 21. In normal course, I would have gone into the said plea raised on behalf of the appellants but the facts of the present case are entirely different. It will appear from the trial court judgement itself that the appellants pleaded before the courts below that there was partition in the family among the three sons of Bisambhar Dusadh, namely, Judagir Dusadh, Musafir Dusadh and Munshi Dusadh. Such partition having taken place, the appellants cannot claim any right, title or interest over the property owned by Munshi Dusadh, particularly, when Munshi Dusadh had two daughters. The appellants, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cannot question the transaction between the heirs of Munshi Dusadh and the plaintiffs as the appellants cannot claim any title over the suit property, particularly, in the background of fact that the gift deed dated 14-05-1982 said to have been executed by Munshi Dusadh in favour of the appellants was held to be illegal and invalid by the trial court without any challenge to it. 22. 22. This is to be noted that the plea of the appellants that Munshi Dusadh died issueless has not been accepted by any of the courts below. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the second appeal. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law to be determined. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.