IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.998 of 1998 1. Ramjee Prasad Singh 2. Jagdish Prasad Singh 3. Ramashish Prasad Singh, all sons of Late Besar Singh 4. Anil Kumar Singh, son of Sri Ramjee Prasad Singh 5. Ashok Kumar Singh 6. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, both sons of Ramashish Prasad Singh, all residents of Village- Giran, Police Station-Shikhpura, District- Sheikhpura (Previously Munger) 7. Sihanta Devi, daughter of Late Besar Singh wife of Balmiki Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Siwan, Police Station- Lakhisarai, district- Lakhisarai ----- (Plaintiffs) (Appellants) --- Appellants. 8. Jamuna Singh, son of late Tota Singh 9. Surendra Prasad Singh alias Surendra Singh 10. Bhagirath Prasad Singh, both sons of Sri Jamuna Singh, all residents of Village-Sirani, Police Station-Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura –(defendants 2nd Party)--- Appellants) ---- Appellants. Versus 1(a) Smt. Champa Devi, W/O late Siya Sharan Singh resident of Village-Sirari, Post Office-Sirari, P.S. Sirari, District-Sheikhpura 1(b) Smt. Rajmani Devi, W/O Sri Laxmi Prasad, D/O late Siya Sharan Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Nandnawan, District- Lakhisarai 1© Smt.Manuri Devi, W/O Sri Murari Prasad Singh, D/O late Siya Sharan Singh, resident of Village Dumari, P.O. Kiserhi, Distt. Sheikhpura 1(d) Smt. Manju Devi, W/O Sri Mantu Kumar, D/O late Siya Sharan Singh, resident of Village-Rasalpur, P.O. Hathiyawan, Distt. Sheikhpura 2. Jageshwar Singh son of late Harsahay Singh 3. Balmiki Singh, son of late Ramawatar Singh 4. Mostt. Sarswati Devi, wife of late Ramwatar Singh 5. Tripit Singh 6. Suresh Singh 7. Jajo Singh, all sons of late Kameshwar Singh 8. Dinesh Singh, son of Siya Sharan Singh 9. Mukesh Singh, son of Jageshwar Singh 10. Sunil Kumar son of Tripit Singh, all residents of Village-Girari, Police Station-Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura (Defendants Ist Party) (Respondents)--- Respondents Ist Party. 11. Kashturi Devi, daughter of Late Bakhori Singh, wife of Sri Kameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Bara Police Station- Chandradip, District-Jamui 12. Bhuna Devi, daughter of late Bakhori Singh, wife of Shri Ramawtar Singh, resident of Village-Upsar, Police Station- Warsaliganj, District- Nawada, added respondents --- Respondents 3nd Party. ---------------- 2 17. 31.7.2009 Heard Mr. A. Mishra for the appellants, and Mr. Gopal Jee 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 20.3.1998, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A. No. 282 of 1974 (Smt. Shehanti Devi and others Vs.Siya Sharan Singh and otehrs), whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The plaintiff had instituted Title Suit No. 5 of 1970, which was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated4.4.1974, passed by the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Munger, and affirmed by the impugned judgment. 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 3 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 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.) 4