IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.383 of 2004 SMT.SHARDA DEVI wife of Naresh Mistry, resident of Roshan Chak Lane, Mohalla Aliganj, P.S. Mojahidpur, District Bhagalpur Defendant no.1—Appellant--Appellant Versus 1.SMT.BHAMA DEVI wife of Sobhnath Mistry, resident of village Balia, P.S. Mahgama now Belbadda, District Godda, at present residing at Mohalla Roshanchak, P.S. Jahidpur, District Bhagalpur Plaintiff---Respondent-Respondent 1st party 2.Maya Devi wife of Kailash Mistry, resident of Gangtamor, P.S. Godda, District Godda Defendant no.2—Respondent- Respondent Second party 3.Anandi Sah, son of Chhangu Sah, 4.Smt. Jitni Devi, wife of Shankar Sah @ Moghu Sah, 5.Ajoy Kumar, son of Dip Narayan Prasad All residents of Mohalla Aliganj, Roshanchak Lane, P.S. Mojahidpur, District Bhagalpur Defendant nos. 3 to 5—Respondent- Respondent 3rd party. ----------- For the appellant : M/S Ganpati Trivedi,Dev Kr.Pandey ------ 4. 08.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2.This second appeal has been filed by defendant no.1-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3.The matter arises out of Title Suit no. 224 of 1982 which was filed by plaintiff-respondent- respondent no.1 for partition of her share in the suit property and also for other ancillary reliefs. 4.The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge-1, Bhagalpur vide his judgment and decree dated 28.8.1987. The said judgment and decree of the trial court was 2 challenged by defendant no.1 in Title Appeal no. 1/1988 which was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, vide his judgment and decree dated 21.9.2004. The instant second appeal has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree of both the courts below. 5.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the property in question is a joint family property. So far the other questions are concerned, there is no claim with regard to any previous partition and even the claim raised by the defendants with respect to relinquishment has been disbelieved by the learned courts below on the ground that no such paper has been produced. 6.The learned courts below have concurrently found that the defendants had failed to prove their case with regard to death of Gaibi Mistry; whereas the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that he died in the year 1965 as pleaded in the plaint. It was also concurrently found by both the courts below that the plaintiffs were able to establish by evidence that she was the daughter of Gaibi Mistry. The learned trial court had also come to the specific conclusion that although 3 plaintiffs had failed to prove by any material that Maya Devi was second wife of Ramchu Mistry but defendants 3 and 4 led evidence on that point and they have duly established that Maya Devi was the second wife of Ramchu Mistry. This finding of the trial court has not been rejected by the learned court of appeal below. 7.In the said circumstances, the impugned judgments and decrees are covered by concurrent findings of fact and, hence, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in this second appeal. 8.Furthermore, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C. (S.N.Hussain,J.) spal/