IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.527 of 2009 Radha Devi & Ors. Versus Dhanpat Rai & Ors. ----------- 7 20-7-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The defendants are the appellants here and this appeal has been filed against the judgment of affirmance. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of their title and possession over the suit land mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint and for restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession by demolishing the standing structure and constructing a house over the same. The further relief was for the recovery of possession over the portion of the suit land from which the plaintiffs are found to be dispossessed. The case of the plaintiffs is that there had been previous partition which is evident from recording of separate possession of the parties in the survey Khatiyan and since thereafter the plaintiffs acquired title and continuing in possession over the Schedule-5 land. The defendants, on the other hand , contested the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that there had been no partition as asserted by the plaintiffs 2 and they are co-sharers with the plaintiffs. Both the courts have considered the evidence as led by the parties and submissions made on their behalf and have recorded concurrent finding of fact that there had been previous partition in the family and accordingly accepted the case of the plaintiffs to be true. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants who has submitted that both the courts have not properly considered the material evidence on record, it appears that there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. roy ( V. Nath, J.)