The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing lineage and inheritance rights based on admissible evidence and documents, as well as the duty to prove negative facts in property disputes.

The original plaintiffs-respondents-appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1991 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Nalanda, Biharsharif in Title Appeal No.93 of 1990 whereby the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 23.08.1990 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-5, Biharsharif in Title Suit No.10 of 1987/25 of 1990.

2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and further for injunction.

3. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the suit property belonged to Kokil Sao, who had only one son, namely, Chowa Sao. Chowa Sao had two sons, namely, Shivnandan Sao and Munshi Sao. Plaintiff nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Munshi Sao. The family of Kokil Sao possessed 1 acre 31 decimals land besides the house on 7 decimals. After the death of Kokil Sao, the land came in possession of Chowa Sao. Some land was acquired by Chowa Sao as a result of which he came in possession over 2 acres 58½ decimals in addition to the house. Munshi Sao separated during the lifetime of his father taking his share 1 acre 29¼ decimals. Remaining 1 acre 29¼ decimals was in possession of Chowa Sao and Shivnandan Sao. After the death of Chowa Sao, Shivnandan Sao came in possession of 1 acre 29¼ decimals and on his death plaintiffs came in possession. 10 decimals land was sold by Chowa Sao and 10 decimals land was sold by the plaintiff nos.2 and 3.

4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that Chowa Sao had no brother named Bhageran Sao. The wife, daughter and son of Bhageran have got no concern with the family of the plaintiffs. Defendant no.1 claiming to be the maternal grandson of Bhageran applied for mutation in the year 1971 which was rejected. Subsequently in 1985 again an application for mutation was filed which was allowed. The said defendant no.1 sold the property by registered sale deed in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3. Since Bhageran was not the son of Kokil Sao, the defendant no.1 has no right and title to sell the property. Therefore, the sale deeds executed by him are fictitious, illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs.

5. The defendants filed contesting written statement in two sets. The defendant no.1 filed separate written statement and defendant nos.2 and 3, who are brothers, filed separate written statement. Their main case of defence is that Kokil Sao had three sons, namely, Chowa Sao, Bhageran Sao @ Bhageru Sao and Sukhdev Sao. Sukhdev Sao died unmarried in the state of jointness. After death of Kokil Sao there was a private partition between two brothers with respect to all the properties and each of them got 1 acre 29¼ decimals in agricultural land and 3½ decimals in the homestead land including the house. After partition, Bhageran died leaving behind widow Laxmi Devi @ Laxminia @ Laxo Kunwar and a daughter Smt. Rameshwari Devi. Rameshwari Devi was married with Mahavir Prasad and defendant no.1 Srikant is the son of Rameshwari Devi. Rameshwari Devi died during the lifetime of Laxminia Devi, therefore, Laximinia Devi executed a registered gift deed on 01.10.1970 in favour of defendant no.1. His name is mutated and is paying rent to the State of Bihar and subsequently he sold the property. The other allegations of the plaintiffs were denied.

6. The trial court framed various issues and came to the conclusion that Kokil Sao had only one son Chowa Sao and not three sons as alleged by the defendants. Bhageran Sao was a stranger to the family of Kokil Sao and had no right and title. The gift deed executed by widow of Bhageran, namely, Laximinia in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs. On these findings the trial court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.

7. The defendants filed appeal before the lower appellate court