IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.16 of 2005 KALI PADO SINGH & ANR. Versus SRI RANJIT SINGH & ORS. ----------- 03/ 28.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This second appeal arises out of Title Suit No. 46 of 1991 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-respondents for partition of their moiety share in the suit property. The said suit was decreed by learned Subordinate Judge-VI, Purnea vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.1997 which was challenged by defendants in Title Appeal No. 09 of 1998(19 of 2000)which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Purnea vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2004. The instant second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not raise any objection with respect to Lot No.-II property of scheduled-A of the plaint but he submits that the properties of Lot No.-I of the plaint was his self-acquired property. The learned court of appeal below considered the pleadings of the parties and evidences and had come to specific findings that there was no document to show that the defendant had any exclusive shop of his own and even the loan application form with mortgage along with surety bond dated 6.10.1958(Exhibit.7)was executed by Satish Chandra Singh and his children including the defendants-appellants. It was also found to be fully proved that the 2 defendant-appellant was living in jointness with his father and the documents fully confirmed jointness and share of the parties who belonged to the same joint family which had sufficient nucleus out of which Lot No.-I of schedule-A property of the suit was acquired. It was also held that the Lot No.-I of schedule-A property though was purchased in the name of the defendant-appellant but did not prove that he was the exclusive owner as suit property was purchased from the fund of the joint family of Satish Chandra Singh, who was father of the defendant-appellant. In the said 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. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)