IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.202 of 1998 AMITESH BACHAN KUMAR & ORS. Versus NAGINA THAKUR & ORS. ----------- 13/ 28.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 184 of 1984 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for partition of their moiety share in the suit properties and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed by the learned subordinate Judge, Siwan vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.1993 which was challenged by the defendants in title appeal no. 23 of 1993(100 of 1997) which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-5, Siwan vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.1998. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants-appellants against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below. From a perusal of the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the defendants-appellants pressed only one point before the learned court of appeal below that the learned trial court did not deal with the issue of unity of title and possession of the parties over the suit premises, which was the most important issue to be decided in a partition suit. However, the said point was considered by the learned court of appeal below which found that the judgment and decree of the learned trial court clearly showed that the trial court discussed the said issue fully along with other issues and did not find the pleading of the defendants true regarding earlier partition in 1915 rather it accepted the 2 version of the respondents that Lakhan was Karta of joint family and there was no partition. It was further held that the Revisional Survey Khatiyan prepared in the year 1919(Exhibit. G) filed by the defendants- appellants clearly demolished the case of earlier partition of 1915. It has also been held by the learned courts below that the defendants-appellants had pleaded the case of reunion and thereafter separation and also pleaded the case of survivorship but they were not able to prove the same by their oral and documentary evidence as per the provision of law. In the said circumstances, there are concurrent findings of fact on the aforesaid issues and the matter which has been raised by the defendants-appellants in the learned court of appeal below has been correctly decided by him. Accordingly, 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. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)