IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.534 of 1998 ----- Mundrika Singh son of Late Hazari Singh, Resident of Village- Ghosrawan, P.S. Griak, District- Nalanda. -- Defendant-appellant-appellant. Versus 1. Kapil Deo Singh 2. Rajendra Singh Both sons of Late Bhagirath Singh, resident of village- Ghoshrawan, P.S. Griak, District-Nalanda. 3. Prem Kumar 4. Santosh Kumar Minor sons of Rajendra Singh under guardianship of Rajendra Singh father and next friend, resident of village- Ghoshrawan, P.S. Griak, District-Nalanda. -- Plaintiffs- respondents-respondents. 5. Sri Asuthosh Singh 6. Sri Sudhir Singh Sons of Mundrika Singh 7. Sri Golden Singh 8. Sri Jitendra Singh 9. Sri Pappu Singh Minor sons of Ashuthosh Singh under the guardianship of Sri Chandramauli Pandey, Advocate, resident of Village- Ghosrawan, P.S. Griak, District- Nalanda. 10. Sumitra Devi wife of Late Kapil Singh, resident of village- Bahadurpur, P.S. Asthawan, District-Nalanda at present Village- Ghoshrawan, P.s.Griak, District-Nalanda. 11. Sri Kaushlendra Kumar 12. Sri Upendra Kumar 13. Sri Devendra Kumar 14. Sri Ashok Kumar 15. Sri Mukesh Prasad 16. Sri Sambhu Kumar 17. Sri Shankar Kumar 18. Sri Sanjeev Kumar 19. Sri Rajiv Kumar Minor sons of Sri Upendra Kumar under guardianship of Sri Chandramauli Pandey, Advocate. 20. Sri Akhelashwar Singh son of Late Ganga Singh 21. Sri Sanjay Kumar 22. Sri Arvind Kumar 23. Sri Manoj Kumar Sons of Sri Akheleshwar Singh under guardianship of Sri Chandramauli Pandey, Advocate. All resident of Village-Ghosrawan, P.S. Griak, District-Nalanda. 24. Smt. Chando Devi wife of Sri Nageshwar Singh, - 2 - Resident of Village- Mai, P.S. Warsaliganj, District-Nawada, daughter of Sri Ganga Singh at present Mauza Ghosrawan, P.S. Griak, District-Nawada. 25. Smt. Rukmani Devi wife of Sri Devendra Singh, Resident of Village-Bhadhokhara, P.S. and District-Nawada. -- Defendants-Respondents- Respondents. ------ For the appellant : Mr. Shyamdeo Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ----- 12. 03.11.2009 This second appeal has been filed by defendant- appellant-appellant challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.151 of 1987 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents -Respondents 1st Set for partition of their 1/4th share in the suit property claiming it to be joint family property of the family. 3. The said suit was decreed by the trial court on contest in part allowing 1/6th share to the plaintiffs in place of their claim of 1/4th share by judgment and decree dated 16.07.1990 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Biharsharif. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant-appellant filed Title Appeal No.04 of 1991 (03/1992) which was dismissed on contest by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Nalanda vide his judgment and decree dated 28.07.1998. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below have been challenged by the defendant-appellant-appellant in the instant second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a - 3 - question that since there was an oral private partition between the family, according to which all the members of the joint family were in possession as per the said private partition which was proved by the rent receipts, there was no occasion for the learned courts below to allow the partition suit. 6. It is not in dispute that the ancestor of all the parties were one Nanku Singh who had six sons, Ram Swaroop Singh, Jago Singh, Hazari Singh, Bhagirath Singh, Mahabir Singh and Ganga Singh, out of whom Ram Swaroop Singh and Jago Singh had died issueless, hence the only remaining aforesaid four sons of Nanku Singh had inherited the property, out of whom plaintiffs are the heirs of Bhagirath, whereas defendants are the heirs of the remaining three brothers. 7. So far the story of partition is concerned, the defendant-appellant has claimed that the said partition had taken place in the year 1945 when Bhagirath Singh, father of the plaintiffs, was alive. However, the Jamabandi submitted after the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, did not show any partition, nor any Jamabandi was created separately in the names of the aforesaid four sons of Nanku Singh and the learned courts below found that the properties continued in the possession of the joint family. 8. Furthermore, no document with regard to the alleged partition of 1945 was produced nor the defendant could validly prove the said partition by any document. Mere issuance of rent - 4 - receipts subsequently in the name of various co-sharers separately do not lead to any presumption of correctness with regard to defendant’s claim of oral private partition of 1945 in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence of partition. 9. Both the learned courts below very carefully went through the pleadings and evidence of the parties and rightly held that the defendants had miserably failed to prove any previous partition and hence it was incumbent upon the court to pass a decree of partition in accordance with law. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned court below by which Title Appeal no.04 of 1991 filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed. Furthermore, there is no substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal and hence it is dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)