IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.241 of 2006 ---- 1. Raj Keshwar Singh son of Late Nanhu Sharma @ Nathun Singh. 2. Bineshwar Sharma. 3. Shiv Kumar Sharma. 4. Ram Niwas Sharma. 5. Narendra Kumar. All 2 to 5 are sons of Raj Keshwar Singh All resident of Village- Lodipur, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District-Patna. 6. Sunaina Devi daughter of Raj Keshwar Singh Wife of Ashok Kumar Singh Resident of village-Babhanlai, P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. -- Heirs of defendant no.9/Appellants/Appellants. Versus 1. Most.Gunjeshwari Devi wife of Late Mathura Singh 2. Radha Prasad Sharma alias Radhey Singh Son of Late Madan Singh, resident of Village-Lodipur, P.S.Phulwarisharif, District-Patna. 3. Ram Janam Singh 4. Ram Jiwan Singh 5. Shiv Pujan Singh 6. Vijay Singh all 2 to 6 are sons of Late Mathura Singh Resident of Village-Lodipur, P.S.Phulwarishariff, District Patna. 7. Raghwendra Singh @ Babloo son of Late Madan Singh Resident of Village-Lodipur, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. 8. Janki Devi daughter of Late Madan Singh, Resident of village-Tengraila, P.S. Naubatpur, District-Patna. --Heirs of Plaintiff-Respondents 1st Set-Respondent 1st Set. 9. Ramanuj Singh 10. Baleshwar Singh both sons of Late Tirath Raj Singh & Dhaneshwari Kaur 11. Ajay Kumar @ Nilu 12. Kumar Saheb @ Karu Babu 13. Chhatrapati Shivajee @ Shivajee All 11 to 13 are sons of Baleshwar Singh. 14. Ujjwal Kumar @ Bullut Kumar son of Late Lalmani Singh, all residents of Village-Nadwan, P.S. –Dhanarua, District-Patna. Nanihal at Village-Lodipur, P.S. Phulwari (Chiraura) District- Patna. 15. Nirmala Kumari wife of Late Ratnesh Kumar 16. Durgesh Kumar 17. Brajesh Kumar both 16 and 17 are sons of Late Ratnesh Kumar 18. Dolly Kumari daughter of Late Ratnesh Kumar All resident of village-Nadwan, P.S. Dhanrua, District-Patna. --Defendants Ist Set-Respondents 2nd Set-Respondents 2nd Set. - 2 - 19. Smt. Mahamati Devi wife of Narsingh Narain Singh Resident of Village- Lodipur, P.S.-Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. -- Defendant 2nd Party/Respondent 3rd Set/Respondent 3rd Set. ---- For the appellants : Mr. Shriprakash Srivastava, Advocate. For the respondents : None ---- 22. 06.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the heirs of defendant no.9-appellant-appelant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.38 of 1987 which was filed by plaintiff-respondent-respondents 1st Set for partition of their 1/3rd share in the suit house. 4. The said title suit was decreed by learned Munsif, II, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 16.7.1988. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants- appellants filed Title Appeal No.42 of 1993 which was dismissed on contest by learned Additional District Judge-Cum-Fast Track Court III, Patna vide his judgment and decree dated 01.09.2006. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that both the learned courts below after full consideration of the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence adduced by them came to the conclusion that defendant no.2 himself in his deposition has stated that he and his brother had sold their 1/3rd share of plot no.1759 to Ganga Devi (original - 3 - appellant) vide sale deed dated 25.11.1983 and now they have no concern or any title or possession with respect to the said property. It was also found that the contents of the sale deed also go to show that there was a house over the disputed land which had fallen down, whereas the plaintiff deposing as P.W.1 has not stated a single word that the suit property was a dwelling house. 6. Learned courts below also found that there was no dispute between the parties that plaintiffs who were from the branch of Prabhu Dayal Singh have 1/3rd share, whereas the branch of Fakir Chand Singh has 1/3rd share and the defendants 1st Set have 1/3rd share in the suit property and from the admission of defendant 1st set it is also clear that defendants Ist Set have sold their 1/3rd share in the suit property to defendant no.9. 7. 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 the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)