IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.359 of 2000 Chandeshwar Rai, son of Bhajan Rai, resident of village and P.S. Desari, District Vaishali. .. ..Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. .. versus 1. Naresh Rai 2. Suresh Rai Both sons of late Lochan Rai 3. Urmila Devi 4. Kaushilaya Devi Both daughters of late Lochan Rai 5. Fulia Devi, widow of late Lochan Rai 6. Akal Rai, son of Nanu Rai All residents of village Desari, P.S. Desari, District Vaishali. ….Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : M/s Naresh Chandra Verma and Arun Kumar Lal, Advocates. For the Respondents: None. --------- 07/ 11.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by sole plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 02 of 1981, which was filed by the appellant for partition of his 1/3rd share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said title suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif-II, Hajipur vide his judgment and decree dated 04.12.1986. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 05 of 1987, which was also dismissed on contest by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali vide his judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, 2 including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that after considering the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint as well as the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned courts below arrived at the specific finding that the plaintiff in paragraph 7 of his plaint had stated that R.S. Plot no.3768 was used to be ancestral house of the plaint and defendants but after separation defendant no.1 Lochan Rai left the ancestral house and in lieu of his share in R.S.P. no.3768 he constructed his house in R.S.P. no.3758 in the east on the road side and by doing so he had relinquished his share in R.S.P. no.3768. 6, Apart from the aforesaid statement of the plaintiff, the learned courts below have also considered in detail the evidence adduced by the parties both oral and documentary and, thereafter, arrived at specific conclusions that the claim of earlier partition raised by the defendants was fully proved and was correct and, accordingly, there was no unity of title and possession between the parties, hence the suit for partition cannot be allowed. 7. Since on the point of earlier partition, there is a concurrent finding of fact based on the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find any illegality in the said finding nor does it find any other error in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor even does it 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. )