JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiff is in appeal against the appellate judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. Balangir-Kalahandi, in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1974, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, in Title Suit No. 18 of 1969 dismissing the Plaintiff-Appellant's suit for partition instituted against the Respondents as the Defendants in the suit. The Respondent No. 1 is the husband of the Respondent No. 2 and the father of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. According to the Plaintiff-Appellant. Jhillo Dharua alias Gond was the common ancestor of the parties and he was the Gountia of village Dalguma in the district of Kalahandi till the year 1936 when he died. On his death, Chhatrasingh Dharua, the father of the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 became the Gountia of that village and continued to function as such till the year 1943 when he died whereafter the Respondent No. 1 was appointed to be the Gountia and he functioned in that capacity until the abolition of the Gountia system and the settlement of Bhogra lands on raiyati basis in 1958. There was no partition among the parties. During the current settlement operations, the name of the Respondent No. 1 was recorded in respect of the entire Bhogra lands and 44.13 acres of land were settled in his name, whereas only 3.65 acres of land were settled in the name of the Appellant which the Appellant could knew at the time of the distribution of Pattas in the year 1960. He thus claimed partition in respect of the entire lands mentioned in the schedules to the plaint. 3. The Defendant-Respondent No. 1, in his written statement, asserted that there had been partition between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 around the year 1940 when the Appellant was given the entire Khudkast lands along with 3.65 acres of Bhogra lands and the other Bhogra lands measuring 44.13 acres continued to remain in possession of the Respondent No. 1 and the lands were settled with him during the Bhogra Conversion Proceedings on ralyati basis. The suit for partitition was, therefore not maintainable. 4. By the judgment dated August 19, 1970, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, the suit was decreed preliminarily for partition. The suit for partitition was, therefore not maintainable. 4. By the judgment dated August 19, 1970, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, the suit was decreed preliminarily for partition. On appeal, the learned District Judge remanded the suit for fresh trial with amendment of pleadings to find out whether the parties were Hindus belonging to the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and as to whether the suit properties constituted coparcenary properties liable to be partitioned. The learned Subordinate Judge took up the hearing of the suit and dismissed it on the ground that there had been partition between the parties in 1940 and the Respondent No. 1 had acquired the right of occupancy in respect of the Bhogra lands settled with him and therefore, the Appellant was not entitled to claim a share therein. On appeal, the learned District Judge remitted the matter directing the trial court to frame a specific issue, viz., "Whether the Bhogra lands recorded in the name of Defendant No. 1 are coparcenary properties liable for partition after abolition of Gountia system in the area". The learned Subordinate Judge was directed to record his finding thereon' and transmit it to the appellate court for deciding Title Appeal No. 17 of 1974. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there had been no partition prior to the Bhogra Conversion Proceedings and since the Bhogra lands became partible after conversion into raiyati lands, the Appellant was entitled to a decree. The learned District Judge, however, on an independent consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, found in favour of the Respondents that there had been a partition and he also found that after the Bhogra lands were converted into raiyati lands, the properties were not liable for partition. It is thus that the matter has come to this Court in Second Appeal. 5. Mr. S.S. Swain, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has taken me through the judgment passed by the appellate court and has submitted that the appellate court went wrong in holding in favour of the Respondents that there had been a partition and that even after the settlement of the Bhogra lands on raiyati basis, a suit for partition in respect of such lands could lie. Mr. P.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mrs. Mr. P.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mrs. A. (sic) Padhi, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5, have supported the findings recorded by the first appellate court both on the question of partition and a bout the incompetency of the Appellant for instituting a suit for a partition of the lands settled on raiyati basis by the State. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in spite of service of notices, have not entered appearance in this Court. 6. At the time of admission of the appeal, the only substantial question of law formulated by this Court was recorded in the following terms: In view of the settled position of law that Bhogra lands before conversion are not partible even though by mutual arrangement co-sharers may remain in separate possession of different portions of the said land, whether the finding of the court below that the Bhogra lands in suit were partitioned before conversion by metes and bounds can be sustained in law; and whether on account of such partition, the present suit for partition is bound to fail? Inextricably woven with this is the question as to whether after the Bhogra lands were settled on raiyati basis taking into consideration the respective possession of the parties, a suit for partition could be maintained in respect of such lands settled with and recorded exclusively in the name of one person. 7. The trial and first appellate courts have concurrently found in favour of the Respondents that there had been a partition of the entire lands among the co-sharers including Bhogra lands which, as the evidence from the side of the Respondents would show, had been done amicably. Clear and cogent reasons have been recorded by the two courts and there are no justifiable reasons to hold that the findings are unreasonable or perverse calling for interference by this Court in second appeal. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the principles laid down in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer Vs. Jangbahadur Rai, and E. Mahboob Saheb Vs. N. Sabbarayan Chowdhary and Others and he has submitted that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court are normally not to be set aside by the second appellate court. 3 and 4 on the principles laid down in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer Vs. Jangbahadur Rai, and E. Mahboob Saheb Vs. N. Sabbarayan Chowdhary and Others and he has submitted that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court are normally not to be set aside by the second appellate court. The High Court is normally to accept the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court which is the final court of facts. A finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court based on evidence or a finding which is really an inference of fact from the evidence should not be interfered with in second appeal, In my view the conclusion reached by the courts below with regard to the fact of partition based on evidence and supported by reasons are not to be interfered with. 8. It is not disputed at the Bar that the lands in question, which were previously Bhogra lands, were not legally partible before the Bhogra Conversion Proceedings, but it is one thing as to whether such lands could not legally and validly be partitioned and it is quite another as to whether the co-sharers could, while partitioning other partible lands by mutual arrangement, make a division of the Bhogra lands amicably for the purpose of separate possession. There could be no doubt from the evidence that by an amicable family arrangement, the lands which were ultimately settled with the Respondent No. 1 had been settled with the Appellant had remained in his possession after they had effected a partition and according to their possession, the Bhogra lands had been settled with them on raiyati basis after which they became full owners thereof. Under the Press Note issued on February 2, 1956, which has been quoted in Magulu Jal and Others Vs. Bhagaban Rai and Others (at page 224), the Bhogra lands were to be settled in favour of the person in actual possession. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant that he was unaware of the Bhogra Conversion Proceedings when the lands were settled with the Respondent No. 1 could not reasonably be accepted. The order of the competent authority settling the lands in question with the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Press Note had not been challenged before the higher authorities. The order of the competent authority settling the lands in question with the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Press Note had not been challenged before the higher authorities. After necessary enquiries were made, Bhogra lands had been settled on raiyati basis with the different persons and accordingly, the lands in question were settled with the Respondent No. 1 and some other lands were settled with the Appellant. 9. The Bhogra lands belonged to the State Government and after the abolition of the Gountia system, it was open to the State Government to settle the lands with any person. Bhogra lands were to be settled with the person in possession under the Press Note and the lands in question were accordingly settled in favour of the Respondent No. 1. The Appellant was not entitled to get a share out of the lands now settled on raiyati basis with the Respondent No. 1 by the State Government as the owner thereof. 10. In the case of Duryodhan Naik v. Ratnakar Naik and Ors. 41 (1975) C.L.T. 375 the question of partition of Bhogra lands after the Bhogra conversion proceedings in the ex-State of Gangpur arose and it was held that the other co-sharers could not claim partition in respect of the land "Settled with one in the Bhogra conversion proceedings. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on the principles laid down in Krushna Ch. Meher and Ors. v. Hrushikesh Meher and Ors. 26 (1960) C.L.T. 187. As would appear from the facts of that case, however, the order of settlement of the Bhogra lands by the Revenue authorities had been expressly made without prejudice to the rights of the parties to the claim for partition as a suit for partition was then pending. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the principles laid down in Krupasindhu Biswal and 3 Ors. v. Anantaram Biswal and 8 Ors. 1972 (2) C.W.R. 1983. That was a case relating to the question of Thikadari system in the Sambalpur district which, as submitted by Mr. Misra, was different from the system prevalent in the ex-State of Kalahandi. 'Besides, the settlement in that case had been made under the relevant provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act under which the lands would be deemed to have been settled with the intermediary and his co-sharers. 11. Misra, was different from the system prevalent in the ex-State of Kalahandi. 'Besides, the settlement in that case had been made under the relevant provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act under which the lands would be deemed to have been settled with the intermediary and his co-sharers. 11. In the instant case, there is a conclusive finding of fact recorded by the two courts that the co-sharers had effected partition, as sought to be made out by the Respondents. Thereafter, they ceased to be members of a joint family. The Bhogra lands were impartible, but parties to the suit were in separate possession of parcels of such lands by mutual arrangement from the time of their partition. Being the owner of the Bhogra lands, the State settled the lands with the respective persons on the basis of possession and in accordance with certain principles and norms set out by it. On and from the time of such settlement, the persons with whom the lands were settled acquired interest and exclusive title. Some lands of which the Appellant was in possession were settled with him. The Appellant could not bring a suit for partition in respect of the lands over which the Respondent No. 1 had acquired exclusive title on the basis of the, settlement made with him. Thus the Suit for partition instituted by the Appellant in respect of these lands did not and though the courts have come to the correct conclusion. 12. In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal. Final Result : Dismissed