IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.179 of 2008 Munni Prasad & Ors Versus Lila Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 06. 22.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal. The plaintiff (now deceased) through L.R. has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance dismissing the suit. The suit has been filed for declaration of title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and in the alternative, the prayer for recovery of possession has also been made. It appears that earlier the trial court dismissed the suit but the appellate court remanded the matter back to the trial court with direction to frame one more specific issue. The said issue related to the determination of the fact as to whether the amount of Rs. 1250/- was paid to the ex-landlord by the plaintiff individually for settlement or out of joint family fund. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff and have asserted that no amount was paid by the plaintiff individually as claimed and she has not acquired any exclusive title over the suit property. The 2 trial court after considering the evidence, submissions and pleadings of the parties has come to the finding that the plaintiff has not paid the said amount to the ex- landlord as claimed by her and she has not acquired any title over the suit property. The trial court has taken into consideration the certified copy of the order dated 10.05.1955 passed in S.A.No.1037/1950(Ext.F/1) as well as Ext.G(certified copy of the decree in appeal) and has also taken into notice that in the compromise petition itself it had been mentioned that Rs.1249/- had been already paid to the appellant by the respondents. The trial court has also relied upon Ext.D(certified copy of the judgment of T.S.No.181/75) wherein also it has been held that there is no unity of title between the plaintiff and defendant with regard to the suit property. In appeal also the appellate court has reappraised the evidence on record and has taken note of the aforesaid exhibits as well as the judgment of compromise decree in the second appeal. The appellate court has also taken notice that in view of the deposition of the plaintiff claiming her age to be 50 years on the date of deposition i.e. 27.04.1989, her 3 claim of taking settlement in the year 1923 obviously was wrong. On the basis of these findings the appellate court has concurred with the judgment of the trial court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that both the courts below have misappreciated the evidence on record and has erroneously recorded the findings of fact. From the perusal of the impugned judgments and considering the submissions on behalf of the appellant, it appears that the findings recorded by the court below are based upon the appreciation of evidence led by the parties. During the course of argument, no perversity in those findings could be established. The issues arising between the parties have been concluded by concurrent finding of facts. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)