IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.90 of 2007 1. Nandu Thakur S/o Bhikhari Thakur 2. Smt. Birijwa Devi W/o Bhikhari Thakur, both residents of village Laxman Bigha, P.S. Aurangabad (T), in the District of Aurangabad. ………Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Bhikhari Thakur S/o Late Ramdass Hazam 2. Parmdeia Devi W/o Bhikhari Thakur 3. Atma Thakur 4. Ram Jee Thakur 5. Shyam Jee Thakur 6. Deepak Kumar 3 to 6 all sons of Bhikhari Thakur, all residents of village Laxman Bigha, P.S. Aurangabad (T), in the District of Aurangabad. ………Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh No.3, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ----------- 07/ 08.02.2010 I.A. No.6992 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of the appellants for condoning the delay in filing of second appeal. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the appellants as well as the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the appellants from filing the second appeal earlier. Accordingly, the said interlocutory application is allowed and delay in filing of the second appeal is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of 2 both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Partition Suit No.39 of 2001 which was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for partition of their share in the suit properties claiming to be the son and wife of Bhikhari Thakur (defendant–respondent no.1). The said suit was dismissed on contest by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 19.05.2003. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.20 of 2003(27/2005) which was also dismissed on contest by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.V, Aurangabad vide his judgment and decree dated 15.02.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed. Although learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, but it is quite apparent that the suit property originally belonged to one Ram Das Thakur after whose death his sons including Bhikhari Thakur and Jag Narain Thakur partitioned the suit properties by metes and bounds vide registered deed of partition (Ext.4) by which all the parties to the suit got separate Takhta and came in possession thereof which is admitted. Much thereafter the plaintiffs had filed the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen claiming that plaintiff no.1 was the son of Bhikhari Thakur (defendant no.1) and plaintiff no.2 3 was the wife of Bhikhari Thakur (respondent no.1) and had sought relief of partition of the properties. The learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail came to the specific conclusion that neither plaintiff no.1 was the son of defendant no.1 nor plaintiff no.2 was the wife of defendant no.1, rather they were son and wife of Late Jag Narain Thakur and hence they cannot be given any share from the properties allotted in the earlier deed of partition (Ext.4) exclusively to Bhikhari Thakur. Furthermore, neither Jag Narain Thakur was a party in the suit nor any share from the property allotted to him has been claimed by the plaintiffs, hence there was no unity of title and possession between the parties to the suit. It is thus clear that the findings of the learned courts below are concurrent findings of fact based on specific materials and hence there is no occasion for this court to interfere in those findings in the instant second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the aforesaid facts and 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 this second appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )