JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This appeal is concluded by finding of facts-No substantial question of law arises in the same. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that the lower appellate court has not discussed the merits and de-merits of the appeal, therefore the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed. Second contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that Maiku was put to prove that he was grandson of Jugul. Therefore, the approach of the lower appellate court is bad in law and the impugned judgment should be set aside, 2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I find that the discussion in the impugned judgment is quite correct. The trial court judgment is partially in favour of the plaintiff on the findings that the plaintiff had a right in plot no. 2711, but on the discussion of the evidence by the lower appellate court, it is evident that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title to plot no. 2711, therefore no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. As regards the contention of learned counsel that the plaintiff did not get opportunity to prove the pedigree, it is noteworthy that in the written statement, it has been stated that Maiku was not the owner of the disputed land. If the disputed land was shown in the name of one Jugul, heavy burden lay upon the plaintiff to connect Maiku with Jugul. Since this link is missing, I think that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court cannot be successully assailed by the plaintiff-appellant. At this stage it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff appellant that in the written statement, there was no whisper that Maiku was not the grandson of Jugul, therefore the plaintiff-appellant did not get any opportunity to lead evidence. It is sufficient to note that when in the written statement it was said that Maiku was not the owner of the disputed land, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-appellant to connect himself with Jugul in whose name the disputed land stood at one point of time. I do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 3. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant fail and the appeal is accordingly dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 4. I do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 3. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant fail and the appeal is accordingly dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 4. I am told that another appeal is pending against this very judgment. The office is directed to list that appeal day after tomorrow.