IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.226 of 2007 1. RAM LAKHAN SINGH @ LAKHAN SINGH, SON OF DWARIKA SINGH. 2. NITYANAND SINGH. 3. RANJEET SINGH. 4. RAJEEV KUMAR. ALL SONS OF RAMLAKHAN SINGH @ LAKHAN SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NIMI, P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. …………..DEFENDANT 2ND PARTY/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS. Versus 1 (a). SMT.KAMLA KUMARI , DAUGHTER OF LATE BISO SINGH, WIFE OF VIJAY SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GOPALPUR (GOLAPUR), P.S. WARISHALIGANJ, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 1(b). SHRI HANTA @ SIHANTA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE BISO SINGH, WIFE OF BILAYATI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-POKHARPAR(POKHARPUR), P.S. BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 1(c). SMT. MALO DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE BISO SINGH, WIFE OF NAULAGE SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KOHILA(KABILA), P.S. AKBARPUR, DISTRICT-NAWADA. 2. RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF BISO SINGH. 3. PANKAJ KUMAR, SON OF RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NIMI, P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA. …………PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS IST PARTY/RESPONDENT IST PARTY. 4. RAM NANDAN SINGH, SON OF SUKHDEO SINGH. 5. SANJAY SINGH, SON OF RAM NANDAN SINGH. 6. MIRTUNAJAY KUMAR, SON OF RAM NANDAN SINGH. 7. NARAYAN KUMAR, SON OF RAM NANDAN SINGH. ALL OF VILLAGE-NIMI, P.S. BARBIGHA, NOW SHEKHPURA SARAI, DISTRICT-SHEKHPURA. ……..DEFENDANT IST PARTY/RESPONDENT 2ND PARTY/ RESPONDENT 2ND PARTY. 8. MOST. TANKI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SIDESWAR SINGH. 9. MINA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE ANIL SINGH. 9(a). CUNDAN KUMAR, SON OF LATE ANIL SINGH. (b). CHOTI KUMAR (c). RAHUL KUMAR. BOTH MINOR SONS OF LATE ANIL SINGH UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF MOTHER MEENA DEVI. 10. GAYTRI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE MASUDAN SINGH. 10(a). JITENDRA @ BABLOO KUMAR, SON OF LATE MASUDAN SINGH. 11. NAVEEN SINGH, SON OF AWADHESH SINGH @ KAMLESH SINGH. - 2 - ALL OF VILLAGE-NIMI, P.S. SHEKHPUR SARAI, DISTRICT-SHEKHPURA. ………DEFENDANT 3RD PARTY/RESPONDENT 3RD PARTY. RESPONDENT 3RD PARTY. ----------- 6. 7.7.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Issue No.(VI), i.e., “ whether the land measuring 1 ½ decimals of plot no.4110 has been purchased by Ram Nandan Singh after partition in between Rago Singh and Munsi Singh” having been decided against him, has not been considered by the lower appellate court. It appears from perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court that this issue was never sought to be raised by the plaintiff-respondents before that court and even otherwise it virtually amounts to a finding of fact which has no bearing in the suit itself. No substantial questions of law, in my opinion, is involved which requires to be considered in this Second Appeal. In the circumstances aforesaid, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)