Ramdhani, therefore, the defendants ought to have questioned the gift deed in order to succeed in the suit which they did not question for the reasons best known to them. Challenge ought to have been made directly to the gift deed, as on the strength of the said gift deed, Ramdhani is said to have acquired title and he transferred the title in favour of the plaintiffs, which was not done. It ought to have been questioned and cancellation of the same must have been asked for under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendants being sons and grand-sons of Pandu, who is said to have executed gift deed in favour of Ramdhani, ought to have challenged directly the gift deed in order to overcome the sale made by Ramdhani in favour of the plaintiffs which they did not do. Therefore, without questioning the said gift deed by which Ramdhani has got the title, the plaintiffs cannot collaterally challenge the legality and validity of the gift deed Ex.P-4 by taking the other party to surprise. As such, the substantial question of law as framed does not arise for consideration and both the Courts below are absolutely justified in granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. I do not find any merit in the second appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
