D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS are in appeal against the confirming judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit for partition and prayer for exercising right of pre-emption under S. 4 of the Partition Act. ( 2 ) MANGULI, Sambari and Chakra were the three brothers. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and late Ananta, father of defendants 1 and 2 represent the branch of Manguli. Defendants 3 to 6 being grandsons of Sambari represent that branch. Plaintiff's case is, although the three brothers of Manguli and others had been separated 35 years back, plaintiffs and the defendants continued to live jointly without any partition by metes and bounds. Since defendants 1 and 2 sold the land in dispute by registered sale-deed dated 29-1-1972 to defendants 3 to 6, grandsons of Sambari, the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming that defendants 3 to 6 being strangers to the family, defendants 1 and 2 should have offered the land for sale first to the plaintiffs as per the provisions of S. 4 of the Partition Act. The plaintiffs also claimed for partition by metes and bounds through Court. All the defendants filed a joint written statement claiming that there had been partition by metes and bounds among the three sons of Manguli and, therefore, question of pre-emption would not arise. So far as the sale in favour of defendants 3 to 6 is concerned, their case is, they being the grandsons of Sambari cannot be considered to be the strangers to the family. ( 3 ) MR. R. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants, strenuously urged that the courts below committed error in wrongly holding that there was a partition by metes and bounds, without considering the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs. It was further contended by Mr. Mohapatra that the finding of the lower appellate Court that there was a partition between the parties by drawing an inference from Exts. A and B, the sale-deed executed by the plaintiffs was wholly erroneous. Mr. R. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the concurrent findings of the courts below that there was a partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants should not be interfered in the second appeal. A and B, the sale-deed executed by the plaintiffs was wholly erroneous. Mr. R. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the concurrent findings of the courts below that there was a partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants should not be interfered in the second appeal. He also submitted that defendants 3 to 6 being agnatic relations of the plaintiffs, even though long since separated from them, they cannot be considered to be strangers to the family. The respective contentions be examined. ( 4 ) THE first contention that the findings of the courts below with regard to previous partition is erroneous, it is well settled that a concurrent finding of fact cannot be agitated in a second appeal. However, I have gone through the contents of the two sale-deeds (Exts. A and B) in which the plaintiffs have admitted to have possessed the lands transferred under those deeds after mutual partition among the three branches i. e. Ananta, father of defendants 1 and 2, and plaintiffs 1 and 2. There is nothing wrong in the reasoning of the courts below in holding that there was a full-fledged previous partition among the parties. This contention of Mr. Mohapatra is not accepted. ( 5 ) THE other contention that defendants 3 to 6, the transferees are strangers to the family also cannot be accepted for the following reasons :- in the case of Paluni Devi v. Rathi Mallick, AIR 1975 Orissa 111, it has been held that the word 'family' appearing in S. 4 (1) of the Partition Act has to be given a liberal and comprehensive meaning so as to include a person or persons related in blood who live (s) in one house or under one head or management. As has been held in the above case, there is nothing in the Act to support the suggestion that the term 'family' is intended to be used in a very narrow and restricted sense and, that, it should be a body of persons related by 'blood who trace their descent from a common ancestor'. As has been held in the above case, there is nothing in the Act to support the suggestion that the term 'family' is intended to be used in a very narrow and restricted sense and, that, it should be a body of persons related by 'blood who trace their descent from a common ancestor'. It is further held that a married daughter who has got a share in the house from her deceased father though resides with her husband elsewhere and at times stays in her father's house and has not abandoned her intention to reside therein and thus related by blood to the transferor member is entitled to be treated as a member of the undivided family qua the dwelling house of the transferor for the purpose of S. 4 of the Act. ( 6 ) IN the present case, defendants 3 to 6 the transferees from defendants 1 and 2 are none else other than the grandsons of Sambari, uterine brother of Manguli. Therefore, they cannot be considered as strangers to the family. This contention of Mr. Mahapatra is also not accepted. There being no other substantial question of law involved, the second appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed. .