IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.203 of 2005 BASUDEO CHOUDHARY Versus DHARM SHILA DEVI & ORS ----------- 3/ 03-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 29 of 1981 which was filed by the plaintiff/ appellant for partition of his moiety share in the suit land. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif- 2nd, Siwan by judgment and decree dated 26.8.1989 which was challenged by the plaintiff/ appellant in Title Appeal No.97 of 1989 which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No.IV, Siwan by his judgment and decree dated 7.5.2005. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/ appellant. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned courts below have specifically come to conclusion that the suit was filed in the year 1981 and in the plaint of the suit it was stated that partition took place in the family thirty nine years back and hence according to the plaintiff partition took place in the year 1942. Furthermore, in his examination-in-chief the plaintiff himself admitted that partition took place 40-45 years back and hence it is an admitted fact that the partition in the family took place before 1944. The patta of Nageshwari Devi is of the year 1944 and thus it is apparent that it was executed in the name of the predecessor of the defendants after the aforesaid family partition. Furthermore, the plaintiff himself could not disclose even the name of landlord from whom his grand father - 2 - was claimed to have taken settlement in the name of his sons, Baiju Chaudhary and Baijnath Chaudhary. The learned courts below have also found from the material on record that the defendants had established the fact that patta was executed after partition in the family in the name of Nageshwari Kuar and Nageshwari Kuar took it from the money which was given to her by her parents and the evidence including rent receipts also show that the Jamabandi was running in the name of Mandodari Kuar and she was in possession.In the said circumstances it is quite apparent that the property was purchased by the purchaser from her Shtridhan and hence it cannot be partitioned as a joint family property . In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. B.Tiwary/ ( S.N.Hussain, J )