JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - This second appeal has been filed by one of the defendants. One Ram Chandra Sahai had four sons : Om Prakash, Shyam Sunder Lal, Satish Chandra, and Kailash Chand. There were considerable house and village properties belonging to this family and after the death of Ram Chandra Sahai that property devolved on their sons. Kailash Chand alone transferred one of those properties i.e. a Gher, the details of which were given at the foot of the plaint, in favour of Harish Chand who is defendant-respondent no. 4, by means of registered sale deed on 20th August, 1956. Later on Harish Chand transferred that property to Bishambbar Sabai who is the defendant-appellant before this court by a sale deed dated 20th June, 1959. A few years thereafter the other three brothers of Kailash Chand filed a suit for partition of their th Share in aforesaid property. 2. Kailash Chand did not contest the suit. Harish Chand claimed that he was bona fide purchaser for value. The defendant-appellant in his written statement contended that after the death of Ram Chandra Sahai a partition had taken place between his sons some time in 1951-52 and in that partition the disputed house came in the share of Kailash Chand alone and thus he was fully competent to transfer this house. Some other legal pleas were also taken. The alleged partition was not accepted by the trial court. The findings on the other issues also were given in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit was decreed for partition of their th share in the disputed house and for separate possession over the same and preliminary decree was drawn up accordingly. 3. On appeal the same view has been taken by the 1st civil judge, Meerut, and the judgment and decree of the trial court have been confirmed hence this second appeal. 4. It was submitted before me by the learned counsel of the defendant-appellant that the lower appellate court misread the evidence of D.W. 1 Anand Swarup and D.W. 2 Ram Das. One of the reasons given by the lower appellate court for discarding the testimony of these two witnesses is that according to D.W. 1 Anand Swarup the partition was written on four sheets of papers one of which was given to each of the four brothers. One of the reasons given by the lower appellate court for discarding the testimony of these two witnesses is that according to D.W. 1 Anand Swarup the partition was written on four sheets of papers one of which was given to each of the four brothers. While according to Ram Das who claimed to have scribed those documents, partition was written on only one piece of paper. It was contended that the evidence of these two witnesses was misread by the court below and therefore this court can interfere in second appeal. I have been taken through the statements of these witnesses. I do not agree that there is any misreading of what they have said. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court on the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the alleged partition had not been proved. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be challenged in second appeal. 5. The appeal, hence, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this court.