IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.29 of 2002 BHAGIRATH MAHTO & ORS Versus RAMASHISH MAHTO & ORS -------------- 9 25.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. This matter arises out of Partition Suit no.227 of 1984 (48 of 1991) which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents-I set for partition of the suit land detailed in Schedule II of the plaint claiming half share. The said suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge IV, Motihari by judgment and decree dated 29.4.1992, against which the defendants filed Title Appeal no.74 of 1992 which was dismissed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, East Champaran, by judgment and decree dated 15.10.2001. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed by the defendants. The learned courts below have considered the matter in detail and found that since the defendants were claming previous partition, onus was squarely upon them to prove previous partition but there was no documentary evidence to show any previous partition. So far reliance upon the mutation by the defendants is concerned, the learned courts below have rightly found that it did not carry much importance in view of propounded procedure without partition by metes 2 and bounds in the year 1953 whereas law is well settled that revenue paper neither creates nor extinguishes title and that too could not be considered without any substance by the defendants. The learned courts below have also found that family has nucleous from which property was acquired in state of jointness and hence the parties have unity of title and possession in respect of the suit property which was covered under Exhibit F. Accordingly, the learned courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ share in the suit property was one half and they were entitled for a decree by partition to that extent. 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain,J)