IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.753 of 1998 Raj Narain Ojha (since deceased) 1(i).Ram Ran Vijay Narayan Ojha S/O late Raj Narain Ojha 1(ii) Rakesh Narain Ojha, S/O late Raj Narain Ojha 1(iii) Raj kishore Ojha S/O late Raj Narain Ojha 1(iv) Ratnesh Kumar Ojha S/O late Raj Narain Ojha 1(v) Raj Kumar Ojha son of late Raj Narain Ojha, all residents of Village Nimej, P.O. Nimej, P.S. Barhmpur, District-Buxar. 1(vi) Lalita Devi D/O late Raj Narain Ojha, W/O Janardan Pd. Pandey, at Sahebganj, P.O. Sahebganj, P.S. Sahebganj, District- Sahebganj. 1(vii) Usha Devi D/O late Raj Narain Ojha, W/o Sriniwas Pandey, at Dilmanpur, P.S. Sahpur, District-Bhojpur (Arrah) 8. Sunnaina Devi D/O Raj Narain Ojha, W/O Balram Pandey at Dilmanpur P.S. Shahpur, District-Bhojpur (Arrah) ) ----- Appellants ---- Apprllants. Versus 1.(a) Gangajali Devi, W/O late Sri Niwas Ojha, resident of Village Nimej, P.O. Nimej, P.S. Brahmpur, District-Buxar 1(b) Smt. Uma Devi, D/o late Sri Niwas Ojha, wife of Sri Jay Prakash Pandey, resident of Village- Sikathi, P.S. District-Bhojpur. 1© Smt. Rambha Devi @ Smt. Rabha Kumari, D/O late Sri Niwas Ojha, W/O Vijyedra Pandey, resident of Village Dubauli, P.S., District- Bhojpur. 1(d) Smt. Padamawati Devi D/O late Sri Niwas Ojha, W/o Sri Satyendra Tiwary, resident of Village Suratpur, P.S. District-Bhojpur. 2. Srideo Ojha @ Bachchan Ojha, S/O Sri Niwas Ojha 3. Jyotishchandra Ojha @ Bachchan Ojha S/O Sri Niwas Ojha 4. Bishwajeet Ojha S/O Sri Deo Ojha 5. Abhayjeet Ojha S/O Srideo Ojha 6. Arun Ojha @ Pappu Ojha S/O Jyotishchandra Ojha 7. Rajnesh Ojha @ Munna Ojha, son of Jyotishchandra Ojha 8. Munna Ojha, S/O Sriniwas Ojha 9. Mintu Ojha s/O Sri Niwas Ojha, all son major no.4 to 9, All residents of Village and P.O. Nimej, P.S. Brahmpur, District-Buxar. 10. Nagendra Chaubey, S/O late Sidheshwari Devi D/O Shiv Gopal Ojha, W/O Ram Ekwal Chaubey, resident of Village-Jawahi Jagdishpur, P.S. Brahampur, District-Buxar ---- Respondents -------- ----- Respondents. ------------- 17. 31.7.2009 Heard Mr. Vishundeo Narain for the appellants, and Mr. S.K. Verma for the respondents. The plaintiffs are appellants against the judgment of affirmance. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.5.1998, passed by a learned Single 2 Judge of this Court in F.A. No. 283 of 1977 (Raj Narain Ojha Vrs. Mostt. Buchi Devi and others.), whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 79/112 of 1970/1974 (Raj Narain Ojha Vs. Sheogopal Ojha & others.), which was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 8.3.1977, passed by the Additional Sub-Judge, Buxar, and affirmed by the impugned judgment. The present appellants are heirs of Ram Narain Ojha, the plaintiff. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff (appellants) assails the validity of the impugned judgment on the ground that certain vital documents have not been considered by the learned Single judge, and further submits that he has drawn erroneous conclusions from the documents on record. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants (respondents) have supported the impugned judgment. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The scope of jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Barhu Ram and others Vs. Butal Ram and another, 1999(2) B.L.J. 818 . Paragraph 15 is relevant and the text of the same is set out hereinbelow: “15. Counsel for the appellants submitted in a Letters Patent Appeal, it is open to this Court not only to consider questions of law, but also to go into questions of fact and in this appeal it is open to this Court to set aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court. While it is true that the special jurisdiction of this Court under Letters Patent does not inhibit the Court from going into questions of fact as well as questions of law, it is equally well settled that findings of fact may be set 3 aside by this Court only if there are good reasons to do so. The appellants must be able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings of fact are either perverse or palpably unreasonable and therefore unsustainable. If the trial Court and the appellate Court have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded findings which can be said to be reasonable, there will be no justification for setting aside such findings of fact. We have, therefore, noticed broadly the evidence on record with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court are either perverse, unreasonable or are based on no evidence or are vitiated for any other reason.” (Emphasis added) 5.It appears to us on a perusal of the impugned judgment that the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against a judgment of affirmance. It arises out of a partition suit. The issues raised in this appeal are pure questions of facts, and can not be entertained within the narrow jurisdiction of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. We are convinced that the learned Single Judge has taken a possible view of the materials on record. The position that another view could possibly have been taken by this Court will not entitle this Court in exercise of the present jurisdiction to revise the findings of facts. The issues raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff falls far of the requirements for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. It is a frivolous appeal. 6. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)