IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.42 of 2008 1. Chandeshwari Yadav, son of Late Sahdev Yadav 2. Dev Narayan Yadav, son of Chandeshwari Yadav 3. Tun Tun Yadav, son of Chandeshwari Yadav All residents of village Routa, P.S. Sour Bazar, District Saharsa.………..Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants. Versus Acharman Devi, wife of Late Sahdev Yadav, D/o Late Kailu Yadav, resident of village Bhaptia, P.S. Sour Bazar, District Saharsa. ………..Defendant-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar ‘Mukund’, Advocate. For the respondent : None. ----------- 07/ 07.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.109 of 1992 which was filed by the plaintiffs against the sole defendant- respondent-respondent for declaration that she was married with the father of plaintiff Chandeshwari Yadav during lifetime of the plaintiff’s mother who was the first wife of his father and as such the marriage of plaintiff’s father with the sole defendant was illegal and void. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Saharsa vide his judgment and decree dated 31.03.1999. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.13 of 1999, which was also dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District 2 Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.VI, Saharsa vide his judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-appellants. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the leaned courts below, but it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below have considered in detail the pleadings and evidence of the parties and thereafter have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their claim by any valid and reliable piece of evidence that defendant had married plaintiff’s father during lifetime of plaintiff’s mother, whereas the defendant had been able to prove that she had married plaintiff’s father after the death of his first wife who was the mother of the plaintiff. 6. These findings are findings of fact based on correct appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties and hence, this court does not find any justification to interfere with the said findings in the instant second appeal under the provision of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore no substantial question of law could be raised in this case. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )