IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1579 of 1995 1. MUSAHRU MANDAL son of Jodhan Mandal 2. Mahendra Pd. Mandal 3. Sabendra Pd. Mandal alias Satyendra Pd. Singh 4. Devendra Pd. Mandal alias Devendra Kr. Singh -sl. Nos. 2 to 4 all sons of Masahru Mandal 5. Narendra Pd. Mandal minor son of Musahru Mandal through and u/g Musahru Mandal by caste Kurmi by occupation cultivation resident of Bariarpur, PS Moffasil, P.O. Sakandrabad, District Monghyr…..Plaintiffs -Petitioners Versus 1. KESHAB PD.MANDAL 2. Bateshwar Pd. Alias Baleshwar Pd. 3. Chotey Lal Mandal 4. Indradeo Mandal - All sons of Shiv Sahay Mandal (deceased) 5. Mostt. Bhagia Devi widow of Shiv Sahai Mandal by caste Kurmi by occupation cultivation, resident of village Bariarpur Perg. Sikandrabad, PS Moffasil, Distt. Monghyr …..Defendants -Respondents ----------- 09- 14.7.2009 None appears on behalf of the appellants. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under clause -10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated dated 7.7.95, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in First Appeal no.258 of 1986 (Musahru Mandal & Ors. vs. Keshav Pd. Mandal & Ors.), whereby the appeal has been dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 14.2.76, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st court, Munger, in Title Suit No.123 of 1971, has been upheld. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs (the appellants herein) preferred TS No.123 of 1971, which is in the nature of partition suit, seeking 8 annas share of the suit property and also for declaration that certain - 2 - properties are self acquired properties. In view of the findings of the learned trial court that there had been a partition in 1946 by metes and bounds in the family, both the branches had been dealing with the properties separately, have been acquiring their properties separately, and certain properties were self acquired properties of the defendants, the suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiffs preferred FA No.258 of 1986, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment on consideration of the materials on record and the judgment of the learned trial court has been affirmed. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. 3. It is thus evident that it arises out of a partition suit and the issues are concluded by findings of facts. The scope of Letters Patent Appeal has been discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Barhu Ram vs. Butai Ram [ 1999 (2) BLJ 818 ], paragraph-15 of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- “15.Counsel for the appellants submitted in a Letters Patent Appeal, it is open to this Court not only to consider questions of law, but also to go into questions of fact and in this appeal it is open to this Court to set aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court. While it is true that the special jurisdiction of this Court under Letters Patent does not inhibit the Court from going into questions of fact as well as questions of law, it is equally well settled that findings of fact may be set aside by this Court only if there are good reasons to do so. The appellants must be able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact are either perverse or palpably unreasonable and therefore unsustainable. If the trial court and the appellate court have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded findings which can be said to be reasonable, there will be no justification for setting aside such findings of fact. We have, therefore, noticed - 3 - broadly the evidence on record with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court are either perverse, unsustainable or are based on no evidence or are vitiated for any other reason. 4. It appears on a perusal of the judgment of the learned single Judge that, on an exhaustive discussion of the evidence on record, the learned single Judge has affirmed the findings of the learned trial court. We entirely agree with the findings of the learned single Judge. There is no scope for interference with the same. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl