JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiffs are the Appellants against a confirming decision. 2. The suit was filed for declaration that' the registered deed for partition dated 10-12.1980 (Ext. 2) is void and inoperative in law. The disputed property is Ac.0.050 decimals of land in Bhubaneswar. The undisputed genealogy is as follows:. Udayanath (P-1) -W. Jhora (P-2) Harapriya Bishnupriya Sobha Laxman (P-2c) (P-2d) (P-2e) (0-1) == Oamayanti (0-2) I Ramachandra (P-3) == Jayanti (P-2a) I Balakrishna (P.,2b) I Ahalya (0-3) Originally the suit was filed by Plaintiffs I, 2 and 3. During pendency of the suit, Plaintiff No. 2 having expired, Plaintiffs 2/a and2/b were added as Plaintiffs on the allegation that they had got the share of Plaintiff No. 2 by 'virtue of a deed of "gift dated 6-3-1982. Subsequently, Plaintiffs 2/c, 2Id and 2/e were imp leaded on the basis of their own application, but they disclaimed any share in the property of deceased Plaintiff No. 2, During pendency of the Second Appeal, Plaintiff No. appellant No. 1 having expired, his name has been deleted as all the legal representatives are already on record. 3. The Plaintiffs claimed that the disputed property had been purchased by Plaintiff No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 2-6-1969 from out of his own income and a thatched house was constructed thereon which was subsequently renovated into a masonry building. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 had entrusted Defendant No. 1 to execute a deed of settlement, but Defendant No. 1 and his wife (defendant No. 2) colluded together and fraudulently obtained a deed of partition wherein Defendant No. 2 was given a major share though she was not entitled to get any property and, on the other hand, Plaintiff No. 2 was not given any share and Plaintiff No. 1 was given very insignificant portion. 4. Defendant No. 3 did not file any written statement and remained ex parte. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement, denying the plaint allegations. It was claimed that the disputed land was purchased on the basis of money provided by Defendant No. 2 which had been received as dowry from her father. However, since the family was a joint family, the property was purchased in the name of her father-in-Jaw, namely Plaintiff No. 1. It was claimed that the disputed land was purchased on the basis of money provided by Defendant No. 2 which had been received as dowry from her father. However, since the family was a joint family, the property was purchased in the name of her father-in-Jaw, namely Plaintiff No. 1. With a view to settle the dispute among the members of the family, Defendant No. 2 had agreed to the request of her father-in-law to make a division of the property under Ext. 2, but there was no fraud in execution of the said document. 5. Both the courts below have held that the disputed property ha been purchased in the name of a Plaintiff No. 1 from out of the dowry money provided by Defendant No. 2 and the document (Ext. 2) was not fraudulently done. On the before said findings, the suit has been dismissed by both the courts below. 6. In this appeal, it has been contended that both the courts below have committed illegality in coming to the conclusion that the disputed property had been purchased beamy in the name of Plaintiff No. 1 from out of the consideration amount provided by Defendant No. 2. In this context, it has been contended that the trial court committed an illegality in deciding about such aspect without framing a specific issue on the point and since proper issue had not been framed the matter should be remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to parties to adduce evidence on the said issue. In support of such contention, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has relied upon the decision reported in A.I. Rule 1983 Allahabad 450 Smt. Keniz Fatima (deceased) and Anr. v. Shah Naim Ashraf. On going through the materials on record, I am unable to accept such contention. Though no specific issue had been framed as too whether the property had been purchased with the money advanced by Defendant No. 2. or from, the money provided 'by Plaintiff No. 1 the trial court has framed Issue No: 4 to the following effect: Whether the suit property" is the self-acquired property of Plaintiff No. 1 or the separate property of Defendant No. 2?.. The present Appellants did not take the stand before the lower appellate court that they had been prejudiced by non-framing of a specific issue on the point. The present Appellants did not take the stand before the lower appellate court that they had been prejudiced by non-framing of a specific issue on the point. On the other hand, it appears that evidence bad been adduced on both sides relating to source of the consideration money. Issue No. 4 framed by the trial court indirectly covers the question and as the parties had adduced evidence and as the question was not raised before the lower appellate court, it is not open to the Appellants to contend in Second Appeal that a specific issue should have been framed. The decision reported in AIR 1983 All 450 (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case,' the question had been raised specifically in the first appeal itself.,As already indicated, in the present case, the question had not been agitated before the lower appellate court. Moreover, the question raised under Issue No. 4 substantially covers the dispute and since no prejudice has been caused the question of framing a new issue and remitting the same for retrial does not arise. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellants also contended that the finding on Issue No. 4 cannot be accepted in view of the evidence on record. The question as to whether the property had been purchased on the basis of consideration money provided by Defendant No. 2 appears to be a pure question of fact not available to be challenged in a Second Appeal. The finding is based on discussion of materials on record and merely because there is erroneous appreciation (according to the Appellants) the said 'finding cannot be interfered with in exercise of power u/s 100. Code of Civil Procedure. Though the learned Counsel for the Appellants has referred to various materials on record on this aspect. I am not inclined to take a different view in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 100. Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The counsel for the Appellants contended that on the date of registration of the sale deed Defendant No. 2 had not married Defendant No. 1. The courts below have relied upon the admission of p. w. 1 (plaintiff No. 1) to the effect that his son Laxman married on 24-5-1969. Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The counsel for the Appellants contended that on the date of registration of the sale deed Defendant No. 2 had not married Defendant No. 1. The courts below have relied upon the admission of p. w. 1 (plaintiff No. 1) to the effect that his son Laxman married on 24-5-1969. The learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the aforesaid admission had' been subsequently clarified by p. w. 1 himself and since the admission was not unambiguous the said evidence could not have been taken into account. The submission is untenable and the question raised pertains to realm of appreciation of evidence. 9. The learned Counsel for the Appellant then submitted that the document in question had been fraudulently Obtained and the partition cannot be paid to be valid, as no share had been given to Plaintiff No. 2. It is, of course, true that' in a partition between father and son, mother is entitled to get a share equal to that of the son. In the present cases'-the document is also not signed by Plaintiff No. 2. If the property would have been considered to be the joint family property, such deed of settlement/deed of partition which had not been signed by Plaintiff No. 2 could not be binding on her. However, as already indicated, the property had been found to be the property of Defendant No. 2. as the finding on the said aspect has been confirmed. Since the property belongs to Defendant No. 2, there is no question of giving any share to Plaintiff No. 2 or any other member of the joint family. On the other hand, the explanation of Defendant No. 2 that since there was some dispute, the same was sought to be settled through the document, appears to be settled. The condition of the document has been proved through witnesses. The courts below have considered the relevant evident on record had come to a conclusion that there was no fraud in execution of the document. The aforesaid finding is again essentially a finding of fact not available to be challenged in a Second Appeal. The condition of the document has been proved through witnesses. The courts below have considered the relevant evident on record had come to a conclusion that there was no fraud in execution of the document. The aforesaid finding is again essentially a finding of fact not available to be challenged in a Second Appeal. Moreover, in view of the finding that the property was the separate property of Defendant No. 2 purchased from the amount given by her, even if the deed of settlement/ partition had not been properly executed, the Plaintiff-appellants would not be benefitted as the property would remain with Defendant No. 2. 10. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the valuation of the disputed property was much more than Rs. 3,000/- and the trial court, that is to say, the Massif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The Appellants as Plaintiffs had themselves filed the suit giving the valuation of Rs. 3,000[-. It is not open to the Appellant now to contend that the suit was under-valued and the trial court did not have any pecuniary jurisdiction. Moreover unless it is shown that any prejudice is caused, judgment' of a Court cannot be set aside merely on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Second appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed