ORDER : I.A. No. 929 of 2013 By way of I.A. No. 929 of 2013, learned counsel for the appellants prays for time to deposit the court fees. 2. Since, the court fees have already been deposited, I.A. No. 929 of 2013 has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous. S.A. No.8 of 2013 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 4. The appellants-plaintiffs have filed the T.S. No. 75/2003 for declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land described in Schedule-C, which is part and parcel of the Schedule-B property of the plaint and a decree for confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession, if the court find plaintiff dispossessed in respect of the suit land, as the sale deed No.606 dated 06.02.2001, executed by the defendant no.2 is null and void and also a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant representative from entering into suit land described in Schedule-C with cost. 5. The brief facts of the plaintiff’s case stated in the plaint is that Land of Khata No.4 plot no. 4207 area 38 decimal and plot no. 4208 area 20 decimal situated in mouza Siyaljori P.S. Chandankiyari, District-Bokaro originally belongs to Aghnu Mahato and Fagu Mahato having half share each. In course of time Fagu Mahago died leaving behind two sons namely, Charku Mahato and Data Ram Mahato and aforesaid sons of Fagu Mahato jointly possess the property of Fagu Mahato and thereafter mutually parted their share, Charku Mahato got half share which is fully described in Schedule-B of the Plaint. Charku Mahato died leaving behind his wife namely, Mukhia Mahatain and four daughters namely, Almoni Mahatain, Halmoni Mahatain, Nilmoni Devi and Fulmani Devi. Sukhia Devi being in possession of the property of her husband, executed regd. deed of gift on 03.03.1968 in favour of her daughter namely Nilmoni Devi W/o Moti Ram Mahato and put her in possession. After execution of gift deed plaintiff no.1 and mother of plaintiff no.2 mutated their name and paying rent. Nilmoni Devi died leaving behind her husband namely, Moti Ram Mahato plaintiff no.1 and a son Vijay Chandra Mahato plaintiff no.2, who have been in peaceful possession over the Schedule-A property in life time of Nilmoni Devi. 6. After execution of gift deed plaintiff no.1 and mother of plaintiff no.2 mutated their name and paying rent. Nilmoni Devi died leaving behind her husband namely, Moti Ram Mahato plaintiff no.1 and a son Vijay Chandra Mahato plaintiff no.2, who have been in peaceful possession over the Schedule-A property in life time of Nilmoni Devi. 6. Further case of the plaintiff in brief is that defendant no.1 Ram Narayan Mahato, who is the son of Jhalmoni Devi, has no right to sale any portion from the Schedule-B property because his mother has no any right title interest or possession over the Schedule property. Without right title defendant no.1 executed regd. Sale deed in favour of Manjodori Devi defendant no.2 in respect of the land described in Schedule-C. Both defendant illegally and un-warrantly trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land by force, the cause of action arose on 06.02.2001 and thereafter on subsequent date within the jurisdiction of the court. The defendants had filed written statement in the Court below in which they have stated that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action and the suit is not maintainable in present form. The suit is barred by limitation, principle of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and provision of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit is barred by mis-joinder and non-joinder of the party. As heirs of daughter of Charku Mahato has not made party. The suit land is not recorded only in the name of Aghnu Mahato and Fagu Mahato but recorded in the name of Aghnu Mahato Fagu Mahato and others. After the death of Charku Mahato, Mukhia Devi was not an exclusive possession of the property left by her husband. But entire property left by Charku Mahato, devolve upon his wife and daughter in equal share and accordingly they were in possession. Mukhiya Devi never execute deed of gift on 03.03.1968 in favour of nilmoni Devi and aforesaid deed is manufacture one. Alleged deed of gift is not maintainable as it is registered at Purulia Sub-Registry Office out of Jurisdiction of the court. Aforesaid deed of gift is also in-valid due to condition impose in para-6,9,10 which are contrary to condition of deed of gift. Alleged deed of gift is one benami transaction which is prohibited as per provision of benami transaction of 1988. Aforesaid deed of gift is also in-valid due to condition impose in para-6,9,10 which are contrary to condition of deed of gift. Alleged deed of gift is one benami transaction which is prohibited as per provision of benami transaction of 1988. Alleged deed of gift has not attested by any daughter of Charku Mahato. Plaintiff never possess the Schedule-B property, Schedule-B property remain in possession of defendant no.1, plaintiff has no right, title, interest over the property described in regd. Deed no. 606 dated 06.02.2001. After purchase defendant constructed residential house over purchase land, there is no cause of action for the present suit. 7. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings and arguments, has framed various issues including issue nos. 5 and 6 which is quoted herein below:- v. Whether the registered gift dated 03.03.1968 executed by Mukhia Mahatian in favour of her daughter Nilmani Devi is valid and legal document? vi. Whether the gift deed executed by the said Mukhia Mahatain in favour of Nilmani Devi created any title in favour of the plaintiff over the suit land? 8. The Trial Court has returned specific finding with regard to the issue no.5 which is quoted herein below:- “It is made before the registry office of Purulia which is not within the Dhanbad district. As such ext. 1 i.e. gift deed dated 03.03.1968 is hit u/s 28 of the Registration Act. As such ext.1 is not a valid and legal document and accordingly this issue is hereby decided in favour of defendant.” 9. So far as issue no.6 is concerned, learned Trial Court has returned the finding in the following manner:- “As such on the basis of aforesaid deed of gift title of the suit property not pass in favour of Nilmani Devi and accordingly her son (plaintiff no.2) and her husband (plaintiff no.1) has not got right title. Accordingly this issue is decided against plaintiff.” 10. Thus, on the basis of the above findings, the suit has been dismissed. 11. The plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.29 of 2008. Learned Appellate Court has also concurred with the finding given by the trial court and stated that certified copy which has been marked as Ext-A shows that the registered deed no.4588 was executed on 08.03.1968 and not on 22.03.1968 and it was a sale deed and not a gift deed. 11. The plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.29 of 2008. Learned Appellate Court has also concurred with the finding given by the trial court and stated that certified copy which has been marked as Ext-A shows that the registered deed no.4588 was executed on 08.03.1968 and not on 22.03.1968 and it was a sale deed and not a gift deed. Further, it has been held by the learned Appellate Court that certified copy of deed no. 4588 is a conclusive evidence of fact that the said gift deed is a forged and fabricated document. Therefore, the claim of title on the basis of gift deed, which is found to be forged and fabricated, did not convey any right, title or interest in favour of Neelmoni Devi or her legal heirs and descendants, who are the plaintiffs in the present case. 12. Thus, there is concurrent finding by both the courts below against the appellants-plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants-respondents. 13. In view of the above discussion and concurrent findings given by both the Courts below, this court does not find any merit in this case and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present second appeal is hereby dismissed.