IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.215 of 2009 1. DAYA RAM GUPTA SON OF KASHI SAH, 2. KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA 3. AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA 4. RAJIV RANJAN PRIYADARSHI ALL 2 TO 4 ARE SONS OF DAYA RAM GUPTA , ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHESUA, P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABHUA) – PLAINTIFFS/ APPELLANTS/ APPELLANTS. Versus 1. SHIVPUJAN PRASAD GUPTA SON OF SAH. 2. MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA SON OF KASHI SAH. 3. NITISH KUMAR GUPTA SON OF SHIVPUJAN PRASAD GUPTA, MINOR UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SHIVPUJAN PRASAD GUPTA, WHO HAS GOT NO ADVERSE INTEREST AGAINST THE MINOR. 4. RAJU KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA, MINOR UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA, WHO HAS GOT NO ADVERSE INTEREST AGAINST THE MINOR. 5. KASHI SAH, SON OF LAKHAN SAH. 6. SARASWATI DEVI WIFE OF KASHI SAH. ALL 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF MAHESUA, P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABHUA) --- DEFENDANT 1ST SET/ RESPONDENT 1ST SET/ RESPONDENT 1ST. 7. JAGA SAH, SON OF LAKHAN SAH. 8. USHA DEVI, WIFE OF MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA. 9. URMILA DEVI WIFE OF SHEOPUJAN PRASAD GUPTA. ALL 7 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF MAHESUA, P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR (BHABHUA) – DEFENDANTS 2ND SET/ RESPONDENT 2ND SET/ RESPONDENTS 2ND SET. ----------- 8/ 18-05-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of affirmation. The plaintiffs- appellants herein brought a suit for partition seeking 1/3rd share from the suit properties, fully detailed in Schedules- A, B, C & D. On consideration of evidence produced by the 2 parties, the suit was partly decreed and the plaintiffs were held to be entitled to 1/5th share in the suit property, excepting certain plots of land, mentioned in Schedule-B. Plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned trial court, preferred Title Appeal No. 60 of 2005/ 5 of 2007, which was finally dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 03.02.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, FTC-I, Kaimur, Bhabhua, and judgment and decree of the learned trial court has been affirmed. Thereafter, the present Second Appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued the matter at length and has raised the issues, which are basically the questions of fact and not a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on examination of materials available on record, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. Consequently, under the mandate of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)