IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.99 of 2005 1. Salma Khatoon wife of late Israil Mian 2. Samsul Mian 3. Ansul Mian Both sons of late Israil Mian. All residents of village Dumari Mahanawa, Police Station Majhaulia, District West Champaran. 4. Panwa daughter of late Israil Mian wife of Md. Yashin Mian, resident of village Murali, P.S. Birganj, District Parsa (Nepal). 5. Subhan Mian 6. Kurban Mian 7. Usman Mian 8. Monaf Mian All sons of Issue Mian deceased, residents of village Mahanawa, P.S. Manjhaulia, District West Champaran. 9. Bibi Jaibun wife of Bani Mian daughter of Kitab Mian, resident of Village-Nay Katola P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran. 10. Bibi Manturiya wife of Jabir Mian, daughter of Kitab Mian, resident of village Nay Katola, P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran. …..Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Khedu Mian 2. Nasrullah Mian, both sons of Jhapulan Mian 3. Bibi Samesa Khatoon daughter of Jhapulan Mian All residents of village Dumari Mahanawa, P.S. Manjhaulia, District West Champaran. 4. Bibi Sairia, wife of Samsul Haque, daughter of Jhapulan Mian, resident of village Nay Katola, P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran. 5. Bibi Nayana wife of Kari Mian d/o Jhapulan Mian 6. Bibi Samunissa wife of Manjoor Mian, d/o Jhapulan Mian. Both residents of village Bahurwa, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran. 7. Bibi Mauleshwari daughter of Sukhari Mian, wife of Ser Mohd. Mian, resident of village Bhawanipur Bazar, P.S. Raxaul, District West Champaran. 8. Ashmullah Mian 9. Rahimullah Mian Both sons of Alisen Mian, residents of village Dumari Mahanawa, P.S. Manjhaulia, District East Champaran. 10. Gitra Rai, wife of Bihari Rai, resident of village Dumari residents of village Dumari Mahanawa, P.S. Manjhaulia, District Wast Champaran. ….Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Rashid Alam, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. - 2 - 05/ 21.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 282 of 1984 (281/1987), which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents first set for partition of their share in the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost allotting 1/4th share to the plaintiffs in the suit land by the learned Subordinate Judge-VI, Morihari, vide his judgment and decree dated 30.01.1993. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants first set filed Title Appeal No. 30 of 1993(71/2002), which was dismissed on contest without cost by learned Additional District Judge, VI, East Champaran vide his judgment and decree dated 22.12.2004. Both the aforesaid judgments are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. From the averments of learned counsel for the appellants as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the specific conclusion that the recorded tenant Sukhari did not die issueless rather he left behind the plaintiffs as his heirs and legal representatives and as such they are entitled to the aforesaid share in the ancestral property. The learned courts below after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties also came to the specific - 3 - conclusion that the claim of defendants first set that the defendants second set also had no share in the suit property was absolutely baseless and defendants no.1 and 2 were taking false defence. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned courts below had rightly considered the respective shares of the parties in the suit properties. 6. This Court does not find any error in the aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the learned courts below and there is no illegality in the same. This Court also does not 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. MPS/ (S. N. Hussain, J.)