JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Aishwarya Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 28.03.2009 and decree dated 4.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No. 26 of 2006 setting aside the judgment dated 22.11.2006 and decree dated 28.11.2006 passed by learned Sub- Judge-III, Rajmahal in Title Suit No. 50 of 1994 whereby the learned trial court dismissed the suit with costs. 3. The respondent/plaintiff has instituted suit for declaration of right, title and for confirmation of possession over the suit land mentioned in schedule of the plaint. Plaintiff has further sought a relief for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit land and the learned trial court on contest after hearing the parties has dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 22.11.2006. Aggrieved with that the respondent/plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 26 of 2006 and vide judgment dated 28.03.2009 the learned appellate court has been pleased to allow the appeal. Aggrieved with that the appellant has filed present second appeal. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that the land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint belong to two brothers Gayanath Mandal & Kasinath Mandal both of them are dead. Defendants are sons of Kasinath Mandal. After the death of Gayanath Mandal, his widow Nitto Mosammat filed a title partition suit no. 24/67 in the court of Sub- Judge, Sahibganj claiming her 1/3rd share in the joint property of the above named two brothers. The said suit was decreed on 11.07.1969 by the Sub-judge, Sahibganj. The appeal against the decree was dismissed on 18.03.1974 by the District Judge, Dumka. The second appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court on 31.08.1979. Nitto Mosammat filed a petition for final decree in title suit no. 24/67. The matter is pending because the entire record of title suit no. 24/67 is missing from the record room. During the pendency of the final decree Nitto died and her substitution is pending. It is further case of the plaintiff that one Ram Narayan was the advocate of Mossamat Nitto in the Title Suit No. 24/67. 24/67. The matter is pending because the entire record of title suit no. 24/67 is missing from the record room. During the pendency of the final decree Nitto died and her substitution is pending. It is further case of the plaintiff that one Ram Narayan was the advocate of Mossamat Nitto in the Title Suit No. 24/67. Nittu Mosammat transferred the suit land by registered sale deed on 20.11.1979 to Ram Narayan advocate and put him in possession of the same. Further Ram Narayan Advocate gifted the suit land to the plaintiff by registered gift deed dated 3.1.84 and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. The plaintiff filed a mutation petition before C.O. Rajmahal, but the C.O. Rajmahal by his order dated 13.3.1991 in M.C. No. 513/90-91 rejected the prayer on the ground that mutation of the name of defendants has already been made as per gift deed. It is averred that before filing of title suit no. 24/67 Parshuram Mandal grand-father of the defendants made a registered gift of the suit land to the defendants and the names of defendants were duly mutated in Title Suit No. 24/67, the defendants claimed the suit land on the basis of deed of gift, executed by late Parshuram Mandal in favour of defendants, but learned Sub-Judge by his judgment held the gift deeds, void and ordered for partition of the suit properties alongwith others family properties. It is further case of the plaintiff that during continuance of the final decree proceeding defendants filed Title Suit No. 57/81 in the court of Settlement Officer for declaration that the decree passed by the learned sub-judge in Title Suit No. 24/67 was void and not binding upon them. The learned A.S.O. to whom the suit was transferred held that decree of the learned Sub Judge, Sahibganj no longer is effective as Nitto Mosammat has died as such the learned A.S.O. decreed the suit. The learned A.S.O. to whom the suit was transferred held that decree of the learned Sub Judge, Sahibganj no longer is effective as Nitto Mosammat has died as such the learned A.S.O. decreed the suit. It is further contended by the plaintiff that Title Suit No. 37/90 was filed by Ram Narayan and others in the court of Sub-Judge for declaration that the judgment of the learned A.S.O. dated 20.02.1990 passed in Title Suit No. 57/81 was void and he had no jurisdiction to entertain against the finding of the learned Sub-Judge, and the Hon‘ble High Court but the learned Sub-Judge by his order dated 10.05.1991 held that as final decree proceeding was pending in Title Suit No. 24/67 the suit was not maintainable as such no decree was drawn up. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and has valid title. Nitto Mosammat had right to transfer her share in the property even though there is no final partition. Defendant wants to take forcible possession hence the suit has been filed within the jurisdiction. 5. As per the averments made in the W/S filed on behalf of the defendants the case of the defendants is that the suit is not maintainable. The suit is barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppel and res-judicata. It is further their case that the suit is under valued. The suit land is not less than forty thousand per bigha. The plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit as defendants are in peaceful possession of the suit land. It is further case of the defendants that the suit land was recorded in the name of Parshuram Mandal in the settlement, which was self acquired property of Parshu Ram Mandal. Gayanath Mandal and Kasinath Mandal were the grand sons of Parshu Ram Mandal and the suit land was never belong to Gayanath Mandal and Kasi Nath Mandal. It is admitted by the defendants that Nitto Mosammat was the widow of Gayanath Mandal and had filed a partition case no. T.S. No. 24/67, but denied that the suit land was joint property. It is further averred that these defendants were minor at the time of Title Suit No. 24/67 and the suit was never decreed. It is wrong averments that there was partition in between Nitto Mosammat and the defendants. T.S. No. 24/67, but denied that the suit land was joint property. It is further averred that these defendants were minor at the time of Title Suit No. 24/67 and the suit was never decreed. It is wrong averments that there was partition in between Nitto Mosammat and the defendants. No any partition took place in between Nitto Mosammat and defendants It is also wrong that the original case record of Title Suit No. 24/67 is missing. It has further been averred that the land was in the ownership and possession of recorded tenant Parshuram Mandal who gifted all the land to Shivlal Mandal and Balram Mandal by two registered deeds of gift no. 4815 and 4816 dated 04.10.67 and the defendants came in ownership and possession of the suit land as well as the others lands mentioned in the gift deeds. It has further been stated that the defendants have never been dispossessed by Shri Ram Narayan-advocate by any order of the court after 20.11.1979 nor Ram Narayan ever came in the possession of the suit land. No title was passed to Ram Narayan Advocate. It is surprising that Ram Narayan gifted the suit land to the plaintiffs. The gift deed executed by Ram Naryan advocate in favour of plaintiff is a waste paper nor plaintiff came in possession on the suit land on the basis of gift deed. It is further case of defendants that defendants had filed a Title Suit before the Settlement Officer being No. 57/81 against Nitto Mosammat, Ram Bilas Mandal and Ram Narayan Advocate. The said suit was decided on 20.02.1990 during pendency of this suit for the result of the suit Ram Narayan Advocate wrongly prepared a forged deed of gift for the suit land in favour of Asha Bibi as such the judgment of case no. 57/81 is also binding on the plaintiffs. It has further been stated by the defendants that Ram Narayan Advocate being aggrieved by the order of Title Suit No. 57/81 filed a title suit no. 33/90 before Sub-Judge, Sahibganj, which was dismissed on 10.05.91 on the ground that Title Suit No. 24/67 is pending hence the suit was not maintainable. Defendants admitted that the plaintiff had filed a petition of mutation, which was rejected by the C.O. as well as by the D.C.L.R. Rajmahal by his order dated 4.12.1995. 33/90 before Sub-Judge, Sahibganj, which was dismissed on 10.05.91 on the ground that Title Suit No. 24/67 is pending hence the suit was not maintainable. Defendants admitted that the plaintiff had filed a petition of mutation, which was rejected by the C.O. as well as by the D.C.L.R. Rajmahal by his order dated 4.12.1995. Plaintiff had preferred a revision before A.D.C., which was remanded to L.R.D.C. for reconsideration and the mutation appeal No. 8/01-02 was dropped . It is further case of defendants that their names have been mutated in the Govt. records and they are paying rent to the Government. During Khana Pari and Tasdique operation of the present survey, the names of defendants have been recorded in Kacha Purcha in connection of the suit land. Kacha Purcha has been issued in favour of defendants. Lastly it has been mentioned that the suit is not maintainable as title suit no. 33/90 has been dismissed earlier by Sub-Judge, Sahibganj, which was lodged for declaration of right, title over the suit land by Ram Naryan, Advocate and therefore prayed to dismiss the suit with cost. 6. Mr. Rajiva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the plaintiff has got no valid cause of action for suit and the suit was not perfectly admissible in view of sale deed exhibit-1 by which Nitto Masomaat transferred the suit land in favour of Ram Narayan, advocate, was contingent and conditional and did not confer right, title and interest on Ram Narayan, in view of recital made in sale deed. Mr. Sharma, further submits that 1/3rd share in the joint family properties of Parshuram Mandal is wholly perverse and based on misconstruction of law and facts that the said preliminary decree was never given effect to nor the same was ever culminated into final decree and in absence of the final decree no partition of the joint properties took place by metes and bounds. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case reported in 2004 3 JLJR 205 . On these grounds he submits that there are substantial question of law and this second appeal may be admitted. 7. Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no illegality in the judgment of learned appellate court and the learned appellate court has rightly reversed the finding of the learned trial court. 8. On these grounds he submits that there are substantial question of law and this second appeal may be admitted. 7. Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no illegality in the judgment of learned appellate court and the learned appellate court has rightly reversed the finding of the learned trial court. 8. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the appellate court and finds that learned trial court has dismissed the suit considering that the purchaser of the share in joint property acquire the equitable right to allotment to his predecessor share on partition and he is entitled to the allotment of specific property sold and to get the possession thereof as far as possible according to equities and in that view of the matter suit was dismissed. The learned appellate court has taken up the said issue and considered that in view of Title Suit No. 24 of 1967, Nitto Mosomat, widow of one of the coparcener of the joint property of the recorded tenant late Parshuram Mandal, her share was declared to be 1/3rd in the joint family property and when the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 24 of 1967 was challenged before the Court of learned District Judge as well as before the Hon’ble High Court and both the Courts confirmed and upheld the decree and judgment passed by the learned Sub-Judge vide Title Suit No. 24 of 1967 and in that view of the matter the transfer of the suit land by Nitto Masomat in favour of Ram Narayan-Advocate cannot be said to be a same transaction rather it was valid, genuine and correct. Once Nitto Masomat was declared to be entitled for 1/3rd share in the joint family property of Parshuram Mandal it means that out of total area of the land measuring 24 bighas and 10 kathas recorded in the name of Parshuram Mandal. Nitto Masomat stands entitled for 1/3rd share i.e. more than 8 bighas and out of the respective portion of 1/3rd share she transferred 4 bighas 19 kathas and 19 dhurs in favour of Ram Narayan-Advocate vide Exhibit-1 and thereafter Ram Narayan-Advocate transferred 4 bighas 19 kathas and 19 dhurs in favour of the plaintiff by way of gift vide Exhibit-2. 9. 9. It is well settled that vendee stands in the shoes of the vendor maintaining the cardinal principle of law and in that view of the matter the learned appellate court has reversed the finding of the learned trial court. The judgment relied by Mr. Sharma in the case reported in 2004 3 JLJR 205 was also considered by the learned appellate court and has been rightly distinguished by the learned appellate court. There is no perversity in the judgment of the learned appellate court. Further no substantial question of law is found to be framed. No relief can be extended to the appellants. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.