Judgment U.C.Sharma, J. 1. This is the plaintiffs appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below passed in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession with respect to the lands mentioned in Schedule Cha of the plaint. The disputed lands measure 51 acres bearing khata No. 209, plot Nos. 316 and 322 situate in village Bhabhua in the district of Rohtas. 2. Subsequently the facts are that the disputed plots were recorded in the survey (Ext. 8) in the name of one Tilkeshwar who is said to have transferred these lands to the family of the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed of the year 1913 (Ext. 4 Ga). The plaintiffs case is that there was a partition in the family in the year 1948 as a result of which the disputed lands fell to the share of the plaintiffs and since then they are coming in exclusive possession of the same. The defendants began to interfere with their possession. Hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by defendants 1, 2 and 5 who filed written statements. Their case substantially was that before the alleged sale of 1913, Tilkeshwar had orally sold the land in dispute to Raghunandan, one of the brothers of Loknath whose descendents are the plaintiffs and since then he was coming in possession. 4. Both the Courts dismissed the plaintiffs suit, It would appear from the facts, as stated above, that the whole title of the plaintiffs dependent upon the oral partition of the year 1948. Both the Courts considered the question of partition and pointed out that the plaintiffs claim of partition in negative by their own admission in the registered deed of partition of 1959. It was held by both the Courts that there was no partition in the year 1948 as claimed by the plaintiffs and accordingly, it was held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their subsisting title in the suit land. This is a question of fact and the findings are supported by relevant evidence. They cannot be challenged in the second appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that the finding with regard to the survey entry was wrong. It, however, could not be satisfactory shown to me as how the question of survey entry is relevant for the purpose of providing title of the plaintiffs. They cannot be challenged in the second appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that the finding with regard to the survey entry was wrong. It, however, could not be satisfactory shown to me as how the question of survey entry is relevant for the purpose of providing title of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, Tilkeshwar was recorded in the survey and the parties, if I may so, derived title from Tilkeshwar. It is not in dispute that the properties transferred by Tilkeshwar did come in the family of the parties In any case, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the correctness of otherwise of the finding with respect to the survey entry is a question of fact which cannot be interfered with and disturbed in second appeal. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the matter, I find that the appeal is absolutely concluded by findings of act. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, without costs.