IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.131 of 2005 ---- 1. Nand Lal Mandal 2. Ashok Mandal @ Ashok Kumar Mandal Both sons of Late Haldhar Mandal 3. Dinesh Mandal 4. Ranjit Mandal son of Nand Lal Mandal (Minor) under the guardianship of their father Nand Lal Mandal. 5. Jyotish Mandal minor son of Dinesh Mandal under the guardianship of his father Dinesh Mandal. 6. Subhash Mandal minor son of Nandlal Mandal under the guardianship of his father Nandlal Mandal All residents of Village Lakshmipur Lal Chand, Police Station Bihariganj, Pragana Chhai, District Madhepura. -- Defendants-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Ajay Mandal 2. Suman Mandal 3. Rupesh Mandal Minor sons of Brahmdeo Mandal under the guardianship of their father Brahmdeo Mandal 4. Brahamdeo Mandal son of Gefi Mandal All residents of Village Lakshmipur Lal Chand, Police Station Bihariganj, Pragana Chhai, District-Madhepura. -- Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respondents. ---- For the appellants : M/s. Sadhu Sharan Yadav & Ram Nath Saran, Advocates. For the respondents : None ---- 05. 15.04.2009 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.121 of 1989 (21/1994) which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for partition of their half share in the suit property described in Schedule I of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was decreed on contest by the learned - 2 - Additional Munsif, Madhepura vide his judgment and decree dated 29.04.1994. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No.17 of 1994 which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge,-cum- Fast Track Court No.2, Madhepura vide his judgment and decree dated 24.02.2005. 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 after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, both the learned courts below came to the specific finding of fact that Most Tetri Devi and Most. Manti Devi were the wives of Late Jagdeo Mandal and there was unity of title and possession between Most.Tetri Devi and Most. Manti Devi, the other heir of Jagdeo Mandal with respect to the suit land. It was also specifically held by the learned courts below, after considering the pleadings and evidence in detail, that Most. Manti Devi and Most. Tetri Devi both had half share each in the suit property and they were in joint possession over the suit land and hence Most. Tetri Devi had full right to transfer her half share out of the suit property to the plaintiffs by virtue of registered deed of gift dated 07.07.1989 (Ext.-2) and on that basis, the plaintiffs are fully entitled to a decree of partition in respect of the suit land. 6. 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 this second appeal, which - 3 - is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)