IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.76 of 2006 1. Narsing Bhagat s/o Hira Bhagat 2. Matichania Devi D/o Hira Bhagat 3. Sukawaria Devi D/o Hira Bhagat All resident of Village Madhopur P.S. Maharajganj Pargana Barai P.O. Pokhara Dist. Siwan Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants Versus 1. Amod Lal s/o Munilal Bhagat 2. Sundarpati Devi W/o Narsingh Bhagat S/o Munilal Bhagat All of village Mauza Madhopur P.O. Pokhara P.S Maharajganj Dist. Siwan 3 Sabhapati Bhagat s/o Ram Nihora Bhagat 4. Rama Shankar Bhagat S/o Tukar Prasad 5. Ramakant Prasad S/o Tukar Prasad 6. Krishna Prasad S/o Tukar Prasad 7. Maya Kumari D/o Tuker Bhagat resident of village Madhopur P.O. Pokhara P.S Maharajganj Dist. Siwan Defendants-Respondents Ist set-Respondents Ist set 8. Ram Nath Bhagat S/o Ram Ratan Bhagat 9. Sheonath Bhagat S/o Ram Ratan Bhagat 10. Bachwa Devi D/o Ram Ratan Bhagat resident of village Madhopur P.O. Pokhara P.S Maharajganj Dist. Siwan 11. Munia W/o Late Ram Bhaju Bhagat 12. Raj Narain 13. Satya Narain 14. Jai Narain S/o Late Ram Bhaju Bhagat 15. Inarawati Devi 16. Sanganti Devi both D/o Late Ram Bhaju Bhagat 17.Mt Koshili W/o Sita Ram Bhagat 18. Ram Awatar Bhagat S/o Ram Sakal Bhagat 19.Shanti Devi D/o Ram Sakal Bhagat 20.Manti Devi Wo Ram Sakal Bhagat 21. Mt Ugani W/o Ram Sakal Bhagat All resident of village Madhopur P.O. Pokhara P.S Maharajganj Dist. Siwan Defendants-Respondents 2nd set-Respondents-2nd set 22.Gyani Bhagat S/o Mathura Bhagat 23. Rama Bhagat S/o Radha Bhagat 24. Most. Vhikhia W/o Radha Bhagat 25.Shyama Bhagat S/o Radha Bhagat 26. Parma Bhagat S/o Hira Bhagat Through Radha Bhagat Guardian All resident of village Madhopur P.O. Pokhara P.S Maharajganj Dist. Siwan Plaintiffs-Respondents 3rd set-Respondents-3rd set - 2 - For the appellants: Mr Chitragupta Prasad, Advocate Mr Raghav Prasad, Advocate For the respondents: None ------------------- 05 21.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.237 of 1985 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for partition of their alleged 1/3rd share in their suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge V, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 18.12.1993. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal no.11 of 1994 which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge IV, Siwan, vide his judgment and decree dated 27.12.2005. 5. From the argument as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below had fully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and had come to conclusion that the materials on record including exhibit A which was a sale deed of 1948 clearly showed that ancestral land had already been partitioned and the land in question was allotted to the vendor by virtue of partition. It was also found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants were cogent and consistent and fully supported the pleadings of the defendants and documentary evidence produced by them established that there had already been partitioned of the suit land - 3 - between the parties whereafter all the co-sharers had already constructed their respective structures in their respective shares. In the said circumstances, the learned courts below justifiably came to the conclusion that there was no unity of title and possession between the parties with respect to the suit land and hence partition suit had no merit at all. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, 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 at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid