IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.118 of 2002 KOMAL SAO & ORS Versus TEKUNI DEVI & ORS ----------- For the appellants: M/S S.K.Mazumdar,Sr.Adv.with M.Nasrul Hoda Khan,Adv. For the respondents: M/S Mrigank Mauli with Vinay . Mistry, Advocates. ---- 24/ 01-07-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 205 of 1991 which was filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents for partition of their 2/3rd share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was dismissed by the Munsif, Sherghati ( Gaya ) by judgment and decree dated 29.9.1997 which was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No. 92 of 1997 ( 38 of 1999) which was allowed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Gaya by judgment and decree dated14.3.2002 . Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court, this second appeal has been filed by the defendants. In the instant case the plaintiffs/ respondents are claiming the suit properties to 2 be joint family properties purchased from joint family fund in the years 1946, 1948 etc. whereas the defendants/ appellants claimed that the suit property was their exclusively purchased property from their own income as Komal sah was running Kirana shop and from its income the suit property was purchased, hence it was liable to be partitioned at the instance of other members of the family. The learned court of appeal below has considered the entire matter in detail and has come to the conclusion that the age of Komal sah as given by him at the time of his deposition in the year 1994 is 60 years as per the judgment of the lower appellate court and 65 years as per the judgment of the trial court. In the said circumstances he was only aged about 12-16 years when the sale deed was executed. Hence the learned court of appeal below has rightly disbelieved the claim of the defendants/ appellants that he has purchased the suit property at such an early age when there was absolutely no material to show any fund available with him. Furthermore, the learned court of appeal below has also decided 3 the matter on the basis of settled principles of law that mere entries in the khatian or issuance of some rent receipts cannot prove title or possession. Hence the learned lower appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the suit property was purchased from the joint family fund and it belonged to the joint family of the parties who are descendants of the common predecessor. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below nor this court finds any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. B.Tiwary/ ( S.N.Hussain, J )