IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.350 of 2004 AJAY KUMAR & ORS Versus MOST.SUNESHWARI KUER & ORS ----------- 04/ 18.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 37 of 1996, which was filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 for declaration of her title and for confirmation of her possession over Schedule-I land of the plaint and also for recovery of possession of Schedule-III land from the defendants, who were encroachers and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Bettiah, by judgment and decree dated 18.07.2002, against which the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 8 of 2002, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, West Champaran by judgment and decree dated 09.08.2004. Against the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below, the defendant- appellants have filed the instant second appeal. With respect to Schedule I and II properties of the plaint, there remains no dispute, except homestead land of Schedule-I,. whereas there is remain dispute with respect to Schedule III properties of the plaint. So far question of Schedule-I property is concerned, the learned courts below have come to a finding that co-parcernership and common tenancy ceased on 30 Baisakh 1362 fasli and the parties on partition by metes and bounds under memo of partition as per Exts. B-2 series became absolute owner in possession of the allotted share and so the plaintiff-respondent also became the absolute owner in respect of 2 the suit land. It was also held that the defendants’ case of re-partition on 23.11.1983 is not proved. So far Schedule III properties are concerned, it was found by the learned courts below that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner of the said lands and was dispossessed on 14.03.1996 and the plaintiff had proved the said fact. The learned courts below have also found that the claim of the defendants with regard to oral transfer of title of homestead land of plot no.461, 462 and 465 could not be proved. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below are covered by findings of fact and no substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )