JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMARSRIVASTAVA , J. 1. The instant Second Appeal is preferred by legal representatives of original defendants Smt. Anjali Mukherjee and Dilip Kumar Mukherjee being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 (decree signed on 23.09.2014) passed by learned District Judge-VII, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No. 2/1999 whereby and whereunder the learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Title Suit No. 110/1984 dated 04.12.1998, decree signed on 18.12.1998 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Hazaribag. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the suit was filed by one Smt. Manju Sinha for declaration of her title and confirmation of possession upon the suit schedule-A property and if found dispossessed, during pendency of the suit, then a decree for recovery of the possession also by vacating the defendants from there alongwith cost of the suit and other relief(s). The case of the plaintiff is that one Late Bisheshwar Mukherjee had two sons namely Lalit Mohan Mukheree and Krishna Mohan Mukherjee @ Kisto Mohan Mukherjee who died leaving behind two sons and the property situated at Hazaribag District and some of the properties were also situated at outside the town of the Hazaribag District. It is further alleged that Lalit Mohan Mukherjee and Kisto Mohan Mukherjee had a house constructed over Plot No. 127-128 and there was some Bakas (vacant) land also in front of the house. The above land also corresponds to Holding No. 283, Ward No. 8, New Holding No. 133, Ward No. 15. Lalit Mohan Mukherjee died leaving behind his two sons namely Arun Kumar Mukherjee and Prithvi Kumar Mukherjee who came into joint possession of the house and other properties along with their uncle Kisto Mohan Mukherjee. It is further alleged that a partition suit No. 17/1943 was instituted by Arun Kumar Mukherjee and Prithvi Kumar Mukherjee against their uncle Kisto Mohan Mukherjee for partition of household as well as landed property which was decreed by Addl. Sub Judge, Hazaribag vide final decree dated 11.11.1944 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties to the suit. Accordingly, separate Takhta in respect of half share of each party called out and allotted. Sub Judge, Hazaribag vide final decree dated 11.11.1944 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties to the suit. Accordingly, separate Takhta in respect of half share of each party called out and allotted. The suit land of this case falls into share of Kisto Mohan Mukherjee who died leaving behind his sons Ajit Kumar Mukherjee and Anil Kumar Mukherjee who came over the possession of the property left by their father but they also separated and started dealing with the property exclusively left by their father. Similarly, Arun Kumar Mukherjee and his sons also started dealing with the properties allotted to their share in the partition. It is further alleged that after death of Ajit Kumar Mukherjee in the year 1955, his wife defendant No. 1 namely Anjali Mukherjee inherited the same property left by her husband and also sold some portion of the property in favour of sons of Ghanshyam Gope. The defendant No. 1 also performed marriage of her two daughters namely Madhu Mita and Madhu Chanda out of family fund who were residing at their respective matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff and her husband several times for sale of the suit land as she was in need of money for treatment of her elder daughter Madhu Mita which the plaintiff agreed to purchase, accordingly, sale deed was executed and registered on 12.04.1983 by the defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. After purchase of the suit schedule-A property, the plaintiff applied for mutation vide mutation case No. 111/1983-84 and also issued notice to defendant No. 1 and after calling for the report, mutation in the name of plaintiff was allowed vide order dated 06.08.1983 and correction slip was issued. The plaintiff also filed an application for sanction of map for construction of house over the suit purchased land. Thereafter, suit land was measured and plan for residential home along with rooms for commercial purposes was also sanctioned. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 started putting hurdles in the construction work over the suit land by executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1. Accordingly, the suit was instituted. 3. On the other hand, the defendants have filed two sets of written statement. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 started putting hurdles in the construction work over the suit land by executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1. Accordingly, the suit was instituted. 3. On the other hand, the defendants have filed two sets of written statement. Defendant No. 1 has filed her written statement separately while defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their joint written statement. Defendant No. 4 and 5 have not filed any written statement and not contested this suit. The defendant No. 1 has raised the objection against the suit regarding its maintainability in present form, no cause of action, bad for non-joinder of the parties, etc. It is further pleaded that the house standing on Plot No. 127-128 and vacant land in front of the house originally belonged to Bisheshwar Mukherjee, Mohini Mohan Mukherjee and Gemini Mohan Mukherjee all sons of Adhar Kali Mukherjee. There was a partition among above three brothers. Accordingly, three branches were in separate possession in their separate share in the residential house situated at village Boddomganj at Hazaribag. It is further pleaded that in the course of time Gemini Mohan Mukherjee and the legal heirs of two other branches felt it necessary for addition and alteration in the portion, so held by them causing inconvenience to each other in the use and enjoyment of light and area from the portion of lands so held by them and considering their advantage entered into an agreement on 29.10.1932 which was registered on 01.11.1932 with free will and consent of all the parties and a map was also appended to the said agreement showing the portion belonging to each branch. The said agreement was executed in between Jamini Mohan Mukherjee, son of Late Babu Adhar Kali Mukherjee as First Party and Krishna Mohan Mukherjee, son of late Bisheshwar Mukherjee, Arun Kumar Mukherjee, Prithvi Kumar Mukherjee both minor sons of Late Lalit Mohan Mukherjee through uncle Krishna Mohan Mukherjee, uncle and guardian of said minor as Second Party and Abani Mohan Mukherjee, Dharani Mohan Mukherjee and Khitish Mukherjee and Jagat Nath Mukherjee minors through their mother and guardian Shrimotya Nihar Bindu Debya, all sons of Late Bubu Mohini Mohan Mukherjee as Third Party. As per terms and conditions of said agreement between above parties, the portion of land lying vacant in front of residential house nine feet wide road to the east of the residential house, no party shall be entitled to build any structure on the above shown area by the letter HFDOPTSR and all will be entitled to use the area EFGT as passage. It was also agreed that the second party, the ancestors of defendant No. 1 shall leave a clear passage for all times six feet wide in front of the stairs OPQW for the third party and the third party shall not use OPQW as a way which may cause vexation to the second party. Further case of the defendant No. 1 is that the plaintiff has misrepresented the facts regarding the partition Suit No. 17/1943 since it was instituted in between Dharani Mohan Mukherjee as first party, sons of late Lalit Mohan Mukherjee and Krishna Mohan Mukherjee and the said suit was decreed in terms of compromise in which it was stated that the residential house will be partitioned amicably between the parties in equal shares and accordingly the subsequent partition suit No. 35/47 was instituted in between the same parties. The claim of sons of Bisheshwar Mukherjee and their descendants about separate possession over the suit land is palpably false and concocted story rather true fact is that all the co-sharer remained in joint possession over the suit land which is still under joint possession of the legal heirs of co-sharers. There was no separate dealing with the properties by Ajit Kumar Mukherjee or his descendants. The purchase of suit land by the plaintiff of joint property meant for passage and convenience was excluded from transfer by any of the parties. Therefore, if any, transfer claimed by the plaintiff is not binding upon the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is an illiterate lady who could not understand the contents of the sale deed dated 12.04.1983 executed in favour of plaintiff. It was also without any consideration as alleged and she was also not aware about the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into in the year 1932 through registered agreement. Therefore, the sale deed got executed fraudulently and exercising undue advantage without full knowledge about facts and circumstances by the defendant No.1. It was also without any consideration as alleged and she was also not aware about the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into in the year 1932 through registered agreement. Therefore, the sale deed got executed fraudulently and exercising undue advantage without full knowledge about facts and circumstances by the defendant No.1. Therefore, plaintiff was never handed over the possession of the suit schedule-A property and did not acquire any right, title and interest over the same. Further, case of the defendant No. 1 is that she never persuaded the defendant No. 2 to create trouble in the construction of the house over the suit land rather the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was got cancelled by her. It is further pleaded that the defendant No. 1 has rightly entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant No. 2 and rightly cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. There is no collusion between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed for and suit is fit to be dismissed with cost. 4. In course of trial, total 14 witnesses were examined by the plaintiff:- P.W. 1 -Sita Ram Singh P.W. 2 - Kedar Nath Sahay P.W. 3 - Kapil Deo Prasad P.W. 4 - Jagdish Rana P.W. 5- Jagar Thakur P. W.6- Santosh Kr. Verma P. W.7- Gyanchand Prasad P. W.8- Bajrang Upadhayay P. W.9- Kailash Nath Sahay P. W.10- Laxmi Prasad P. W.11-Balki Ram P. W.12- Vijay Kishore Prasad P. W.13- Manju Sinha (plaintiff) P. W.14-Krishna Ballav Sahay 5. Apart from above oral evidence of witnesses, plaintiff has also proved the following documents to support his case:- Exhibit.1- Notice dated 16.07.1983 Exhibit 2 and 2/a -Govt. Rent Receipts Exhibit 3 -sale deed dated 12.04.1983 Exhibit 4 -Rent receipt dated 12.04.1983 Exhibit 5 to 5/a -Advocate’s Notice on behalf of Srimati Manju Sinha Exhibit 6 to 6/B -Advocate’s Notice Acknowledgment and Postal Receipt Exhibit 1/A –Signature of Advocate Sri Sunil Kumar Dutta Exhibit 2/B and 2/C -Govt. Rent Receipt Exhibit 7 and 7/A -Register II Exhibit 1/B -Signature on A/D Exhibit 8 -Map Exhibit 9 to 9/a- Notice in Title Suit No. 110 of 1984 Exhibit 10 to 10/B -Letter Exhibit 3/A -Sale deed Exhibit 11 -Passbook Exhibit 11/A -Ancestor Pass Book 6. Rent Receipt Exhibit 7 and 7/A -Register II Exhibit 1/B -Signature on A/D Exhibit 8 -Map Exhibit 9 to 9/a- Notice in Title Suit No. 110 of 1984 Exhibit 10 to 10/B -Letter Exhibit 3/A -Sale deed Exhibit 11 -Passbook Exhibit 11/A -Ancestor Pass Book 6. On behalf of the defendants, nine witnesses were examined: D.W.1 - S.P. Sarkar D.W.2 - Banwari Ram D.W.3 - Nand Kumar Mishra D.W.4 - Nageshwar Prasad D.W.5 - Jagarnath Mukherjee D.W.6 - Dilip Kumar Mukherjee (defendant No. 2) D.W.7 - Krishna S. Verma D.W.8 - Maleshwar Narayan D.W.9 - Basant Prasad 7. Apart from the oral testimony of defendants, following documents have been exhibited: Exhibit – A- Map Exhibit – A/1 -Pleader Commissioner’s Report dated 09.01.1950 Exhibit -A/2 -Map Exhibit – B Agreement Exhibit- C - Cancellation of deed dated 17.08.1984 Exhibit- X Power of Attorney (Mark for identification) Exhibit D to D/1 - Notice Exhibit- E Power of Attorney Exhibit- F Sale deed dated 01.12.1984 Exhibit -G –Death certificate dated 16.07.1987 of Ajit Kumar Mukherjee Exhibit-H to H/1 -Certified copy of Decree in P.S. N. 17/1943 and Decree in P.S. 35/1947 Exhibit-I- Khatiyan Exhibit-J- C.C. of sale deed No. 4255 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the plaintiff got a valid cause of action for the suit? iii. Whether the plaintiff has title over the suit property and whether her possession over the same can be confirmed? iv. Whether defendant No. 1 was entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and 3 of 1.12.1984 and the sale deed in favouf of defendant No. 2 and 3 is valid? v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any other relief(s) 9. The learned trial Court has decided all the issues in favour of plaintiff and decreed the suit on contest with cost. 10. The defendants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 02/1999. The appellate Court has formulated further three points for adjudication as under:- i. Whether the defendant No. 1 was entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deed executed by her conferred any right, title and interest to the plaintiff? ii. The appellate Court has formulated further three points for adjudication as under:- i. Whether the defendant No. 1 was entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deed executed by her conferred any right, title and interest to the plaintiff? ii. Whether the suit land was a joint property of defendant No. 1 and others according to the deed of 1932? iii. To what relief or reliefs if any is plaintiff/respondent entitled? 11. After hearing the arguments of the parties, set aside the judgment passed by learned trial court vide order dated 30.11.2002 and remanded the matter back to the concerned trial Court for afresh decision on vital issues in the light of observations made by the first appellate Court. 12. The aforesaid order of remand was challenged by the plaintiff by filing Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2003 before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi and vide order dated 01.04.2014, the order of remand passed by the first appellate Court dated 30.11.2002 was set aside and the appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal on the basis of materials available on record. 13. Thereafter, the said first appeal was re-heard and the judgement passed by the learned trial Court was upheld and affirmed by learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.09.2014. 14. The appellants/defendants have challenged the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court as well as first appellate Court in this Second Appeal which was admitted vide order dated 17.11.2021 on following substantial question of law:- “Whether the defendant No. 1 Anjali Mukherjee had right to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to the suit land in view of the registered agreement dated 01.11.1932 and having executed such a sale deed whether transferred any valid right, title and interest over the suit land to defendant No.1.” 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the whole case of the defendants is based upon registered agreement of the year 1932 (Exhibit-B) in the form of a settlement between the then co- sharers of the properties including the suit schedule-A property and there was an agreement to leave the suit schedule A property open for common use of the parties. Exhibit-B being a registered document and more than thirty years old carries presumption of law regarding its validity. Exhibit-B being a registered document and more than thirty years old carries presumption of law regarding its validity. The learned trial Court held the Exhibit-B to be not enforceable between the parties merely on the ground that the said agreement was not produced at the time of hearing in Partition Suit No. 17/1943 and partition Suit No. 35/1947. Report of pleader commissioner is also silent on this point. Therefore, it was held that the transfer of suit schedule A property by defendant No. 1 through registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff conferred her right, title and interest over the sold property. It is further submitted that in the partition suit No. 35/1947, the pleader commissioner report (Exhibit-H) formed part of the decree dated 21.02.1950. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly consider the contents of Exhibit-H wherein it is specifically mentioned that “the open space i.e. at the front of the house should be in joint possession and should be kept vacant according to a previous agreement among the parties and other co- sharer.” The above content refers the registered agreement of 1932 which was also to the effect that the land left for common use in front of the house shall not be sold and always be used by all the parties in common as per convenience. Therefore, both the Court below have miserably failed to properly appreciate the Exhibit-B and Exhibit-H in right perspective and also failed to consider that the common open space cannot be transferred as it cannot be said to be exclusive property of anyone. Therefore, the defendant No. 1 cannot transfer a better title than she herself had in respect of property sold in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has not acquired any valid right, title and interest over the suit schedule-A property. Moreover, the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff was cancelled through registered instrument (Exhibit-C). Therefore, impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. Moreover, the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff was cancelled through registered instrument (Exhibit-C). Therefore, impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/defendants has submitted that there is concurrent finding of two Courts that after execution of the registered agreement of settlement in respect of joint properties of the above co-owners and co-sharers, there was drastic subsequent change in the nature of property and partition suit was filed in the year 1943 and 1947. Accordingly, final decree was prepared. The suit property came into the share of husband of defendant No. 1, who has validly sold her share in favour of plaintiff after receiving valuable consideration. Both the Court below has recorded concurrent findings that the agreement of the year 1932 (Exhibit-B) has become redundant and waived by the parties in view of the subsequent partition by Mets and Bounds. It is further submitted that unilateral cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 through Exhibit- C is not in consonance with law and such type of cancellation is not recognized under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. Moreover, the said defendant No. 1 after executing purported cancellation (Exhibit-C) has executed Exhibit-F another sale deed in respect of same suit property in favour of the defendant No. 2 which clearly indicates that defendant No. 2 has prevailed over the defendant No. 1 with a view to grab the property. It is very strange to say that if defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the suit property to plaintiff, then how she was entitled and got right to sell the same property to defendant No. 2. All the objections agitated by defendant No. 1 and 2 are motivated to deprive the plaintiff from the suit property acquired by her through valid purchase. There is no valid reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as appellate Court. There is no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 17. There is no valid reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as appellate Court. There is no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 17. I have gone through the record of the case along with Judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court as well as first Appellate Court. 18. It appears that both the Court below have recorded specific findings that the suit property was partitioned among co-owners in the year 1932 through registered agreement, thereafter, through partition suit No. 17/1943 among sons of Late Lalit Mohan Mukherjee and Krishna Mohan Mukherjee and partition suit No. 35/1947 Arun Kumar Mukherjee and Anr. Vs. Krishna Mohan Mukherjee. There was no whisper with regard to no saleable right over the suit schedule-A property to any of the parties. It is an admitted fact that possession over the suit property was with defendant No. 1 and she has sold it through registered sale deed i.e. Exhibit-3 in favour of plaintiff. From perusal of judgment of both the court below, it transpires that the dispute arose between the defendants, therefore, defendant No. 2 got cancellation of the sale deed through another registered cancellation deed i.e. Exhibit-C and also got sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 vide Exhibit-F. Therefore, there appears no substance that agreement of 1932 is still prevailing between the parties and defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the suit property being common land, particularly, in view of the fact that it was common space, then how defendant No. 2 has got registered sale deed in his favour subsequent to the execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. 19. In this view of the matter, I do not find any legal substantial question of law formulated by the appellants in this appeal. I also find no reason to take a different view and interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court as well first appellate Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 20. Accordingly, this second appeal is devoid of merits and hence the same is dismissed with cost on contest. 21. Pending I.A.s if any, stands disposed of. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial/appellate court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.