IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.87 of 2006 Dashrath Gope @ Dashrath Yadav son of Late Lala Gope, resident of Mohalla-Dariyapur, Birla Mandir Road, Patna, P.S. Pirbahore, District-Patna. …………….Defendant-Appellant-Appellant. Versus Sheopujan Gope @ Sheopujan Yadav, son of Late Lala Gope, resident of Mohalla-Dariyapur, Birlamandir Road, Patna, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna. ………. .Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent. For the appellant : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Birendra Kumar and Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates. ----------- 9/ 20.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the sole defendant-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Partition Suit No. 71 of 1998, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for partition of the suit property claiming that both the parties were full brothers being the sons of Late Lala Gope and hence each of them had moiety share therein. The said claim was contested by the defendant on the ground of previous partition supported by Punchnama, notices of Municipal Corporation, Assessment Register, Mutation Order, etc. The said suit was decreed on contest without cost by learned Subordinate Judge-6, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2001, which was challenged by the defendant in Title Appeal No. 100 of 2001. The said title appeal was dismissed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2006 whereafter the instant second appeal has been filed by the 2 appellant. From the averments of the parties and the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that the matter has been considered in detail and it has specifically been found that the plaintiff claimed that the Punchanama did not bear his signature and the defendant, who was relying upon the said Punchanama did not get the signature of the plaintiff examined. The learned courts below specifically found that the said Punchanama was an unregistered document and it was not considered fit to be relied upon even for collateral purposes. So far the other claims of the defendant with regard to mutation receipts, electric connections, etc. are concerned, the learned courts below specifically found that they cannot be held to be proof of partition by metes and bounds as required in law. In the said circumstances the learned courts below rightly came to the conclusion that there was no previous partition in the disputed house by metes and bounds and hence, the plaintiff was fully entitled to get the said premises partitioned. In the said 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 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.)