JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, A.C.J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal filed against the concurrent Judgements of the two courts below holding that the plaintiff had no right to get the partition to the extent of the share claimed by the plaintiff in the two houses Nos. 307/186 and 302/184, Mohatsimganj, Allahabad The house belonged to one Haji Mohammad Khan as was claimed by the plaintiff on his death the property was inherited by his widow and as the defendants were not prepared to partition the property, the suit was filed. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants denying the pedigree set up by the plaintiff. 3. Following issues were framed in the suit by the Munsif : 1. What is the share of the plaintiff, if any, in subject matter of the suit. 2. Whether defendant No. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice if so, its effect? 3. Is the suit barred by estoppel and acquiescence? 4. Relief? 4. The trial court held that the plaintiff had no share in the property and that the defendant No. 1 (Bibban Bibi) was the absolute and only owner of the same. The suit was dismissed. 5. The appeal filed by the plaintiff Nisar Ahmad was dismissed lower appellate court by endorsing the findings on all the issues given the trial court. The lower appellate court had found that the deceased Mohammad Khan had gifted the property in question by means of oral gift to Bibban Bibi and that she was absolute owner of the property in which the plaintiff had no share. 6. I have gone through the Judgements of the courts below on the correct concision the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share. The findings recorded by the two courts below are findings of fact. The appeal has not merits and deserves to be dismissed. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.