Dismissed¶29

Bisheshwar Kumar Singh @ Vishwar Kumar v. Munna Yadav and Anr.

Patna HC12 Jan 2026SA/353/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance of contract; Mahadanama / agreement to sell dated 11.02.2000; 10 kathas of land, Plot No. 595, Bettiah, West Champaran; categorical denial of execution; plea of forged and fabricated document; left thumb impression not compared with admitted thumb impression; no finger print expert examination; genuineness of agreement doubtful; concurrent findings not perverse; no substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed at stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C.; Title Suit No. 31 of 2003; Title Appeal No. 15 of 2011.

What did the court decide?

In absence of any comparison of the alleged left thumb impression of the executant (Most. Sarbatiya Devi) on the Mahadanama with her admitted left thumb impression by a fingerprint expert, the authenticity of the Mahadanama dated 11.02.2000 becomes doubtful. ¶25

Bisheshwar Kumar Singh @ Vishwar Kumar Vs Munna Yadav and Anr. — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved execution and authenticity of the Mahadanama (agreement to sell) dated 11.02.2000, given the defendant's specific denial and the absence of any comparison of the disputed thumb impression by a fingerprint expert. +2 more

¶25

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff has failed to prove the Mahadanama dated 11.02.2000 as a genuine document.

¶25

Key takeaways

The concurrent findings of the learned courts below that the Mahadanama has not been proved cannot be said to be perverse and illegal.ratio¶27
There is no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, involved in the case and the Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C. (Patna High Court, Khatim Reza, J., 12-01-2026). The suit sought specific performance of a Mahadanama (agreement to sell) dated 11.02.2000 over 10 kathas of land for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- with Rs. 15,000/- alleged earnest money; the defendant denied execution and alleged forgery. Both courts below concurrently found the Mahadanama doubtful, invalid and unenforceable because the disputed left thumb impression was never compared with any admitted thumb impression nor examined by a finger print expert. The High Court held that in the absence of such comparison by a fingerprint expert the authenticity of the document is doubtful and the plaintiff failed to prove it as a genuine document; the concurrent findings are neither perverse nor illegal, and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SECOND APPEAL No.353 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Bisheshwar Kumar Singh @ Vishwar Kumar S/o Nawal Kishore Singh, R/o Mohalla- Koeri Tola, Adarsh Colony, Bettiah, P.O. and P.S.- Bettiah Town, Dist- West Champaran.

¶4

... ... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Munna Yadav S/o Late Shital Raut

¶7

Ahilya Devi, D/o Late Shital Raut, W/o Ramagya Yadav, Both R/o MohallaChhawani, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah Town, Distt- West Champaran.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mrs. Megha Singh, Advocate Ms. Shalini Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned senior

¶12

counsel assisted by Mr. Parth Gaurav appearing on behalf of the appellants.

¶13

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 01.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2011, whereby the learned First Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge–IV, Bettiah, in Title Suit No. 31 of 2003.

¶14

Patna High Court SA No.353 of 2017(4) dt.12-01-2026 2/6

¶15

The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of a Mahadanama (agreement to sell) dated 11.02.2000, alleged to have been executed by the defendant Most. Sarbatiya Devi, w/o Shital Raut in respect of 10 kathas of land described in the Mahadanama . The total consideration was stated to be Rs. 60,000/-, out of which Rs. 15,000/- was allegedly paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement.

¶16

The defendant appeared and filed her written statement categorically denying the execution of the alleged Mahadanama ( agreement to sell) dated 11-02-2000. It was specifically pleaded that the said agreement to sell was forged and fabricated and brought into existence to deceive the defendant. It was further asserted that she had no title over the suit land and no negotiation for sale ever took place as well as that no earnest money was paid by the plaintiff. It was also contended that the land, in dispute, originally belonged to Ram Khelawan Raut. The properties, in-question, and others were self-acquired property by Ram Khelawan Raut and it is further pleaded that Ram Khelawan Raut after his marriage settled in his ‘ Sasural’ and he had no ancestral land and there was no nucleus for joint acquisition and, in fact, the said Ram

¶17

Patna High Court SA No.353 of 2017(4) dt.12-01-2026 3/6

¶18

Khelawan Raut made separate acquisition from his own earning in his own name as well as in the names of his daughter-in-law (original defendant) and son Munna Yadav. Ram Khelawan Raut left behind 2 bighas 9 kathas 19 dhurs of land after his death. Two sons of Ram Khelawan Raut, namely, Yadolal Raut and Dharichhan Raut died issueless. The family was never joint. It was further pleaded that the 3^rd son, namely, Shital Raut, also died in the year 1975 leaving behind his wife, Most. Sarbatiya Devi (original defendant). Most. Sarbatiya Devi, Munna Yadav and Ahilya Devi executed a deed of gift of 1 bigha 16 kathas 19 dhurs land in favour of the son of Munna Yadav and also delivered possession to the donee, who has been coming in possession over the said gifted land. After the aforesaid gift, only 13 kathas of land were left in Plot No. 595 in which Most. Sarbatiya Devi, her son Munna Yadav and daughter Ahilya Devi have got equal share and for the purpose of raising resource about the said gift deed, Most. Sarbatiya Devi has executed a sale deed with regard to 3 kathas of land in favour of the plaintiff and the said sale deed was executed on 11.02.2000. After the said sale deed only 10 kathas of land remained in the said Plot No. 595. It is further pleaded that she never proposed to sell the remaining 10 kathas in favour of the

¶19

Patna High Court SA No.353 of 2017(4) dt.12-01-2026 4/6

¶20

plaintiff and no negotiation for sale ever took place about the land, in question, for consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/- and she was never in need of urgent money and also never received Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money. She further alleged that the Mahadanama dated 11.02.2000 is forged and fabricated rendering the plaintiff liable for criminal prosecution.

¶21

The learned Trial Court, after scrutiny of pleadings, evidence and materials on record and after hearing the parties dismissed the suit.

¶22

Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 15 of 2011, which was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. While adjudicating the appeal, the learned Appellate Court framed points for determination and after appreciation of evidence and materials on record held that there was a specific and categorical denial by DW-1, Most. Sarbatiya Devi, who clearly stated in her examination-in-chief that she had never agreed to sell the suit land. The plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged Mahadanama was a genuine document. The learned Appellate Court further observed that the plaintiff failed to establish that the left thumb impression on the Mahadanama dated 11.02.2000 belonged to the defendant, as no comparison was made with any admitted thumb

¶23

Patna High Court SA No.353 of 2017(4) dt.12-01-2026 5/6

¶24

impression and the thumb impression on the Mahadanama was not examined by any finger print expert. Consequently, the Mahadanama dated 11.02.2000 was found to be doubtful, invalid and unenforceable in the eyes of law. On the basis of these findings, the learned Appellate Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific performance.

¶25

Having considered the facts, materials on record and the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that there is specific denial by the defendant regarding execution of the Mahadanama (agreement to sell) dated 11.02.2000. It is also evident that despite the plaintiff’s own case that the defendant had executed a registered sale deed dated 09.02.2000 in his favour for 3 kathas of land, no such document was produced or exhibited before the Court for the purpose of comparison of admitted thumb impression with the disputed one appearing on the said Mahadanama. In absence of any comparison of the alleged left thumb impression of Most. Sarbatiya Devi appearing on the Mahadanama with her admitted left thumb impression by a fingerprint expert, the authenticity of the said Mahadanama becomes doubtful. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to prove the Mahadanama as a genuine document and hence the

¶26

Patna High Court SA No.353 of 2017(4) dt.12-01-2026 6/6

¶27

concurrent findings of the learned Courts below that the Mahadanama has not been proved and impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse and illegal.

¶28

Having regard to the discussions made hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below and there is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in this case.

¶29