Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment of affirmance. The appellants, who were plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 48/13 of 1967/1975 for redemption of a mortgage bond dated 9.4.1922, allegedly, executed by Balgobind, son of Chetu Gope of Village Baghi in the district of Samastipur. The appellants claimed redemption by virtue of two sale deeds executed by Ramudgar, son of Balgobind, who was defendant No. 12 in the suit. The plaintiffs had impleaded Ram Prasad Bhagat, the mortgagee, his sons and daughters as defendant 1st party. 2. The defendants third set were the wife and daughter of Munsilal Bhagat, brother of Ram Prasad. The main contest was in between the plaintiffs and Raghubir Bhagat, Sola of Ram Prasad. The defendants 1st set, namely, the heirs of Ram Prasad Bhagat supported the case of Raghubir Bhagat (defendant No. 13). The entire allegation in the plaint regarding mortgage and subsequent dealing of mortgage property was disputed in the written statement filed on behalf of Raghubir Bhagat whose case is that the said property was purchased by him in Court auction pursuant to a rent decree obtained by the landlord against Balgobind. This happened in the year 1927 much before the property was purchased by the plaintiffs from Ramudgar Rai. 3. The contesting defendants challenged the alleged mortgage said to have been executed by Balgobind in favour of Ram Prasad Rai. According to the plaintiffs case after the death of Balgobind Gope, his son Ramudgar Rai inherited his property. He left the village Baghi and settled down in another village near village Baghi. The plaintiffs purchased the property worth of Rs. 4,000.00 from Ramudgar Rai. After the purchase, the plaintiffs learnt that the contesting defendants claimed that the suit property had been purchased by Raghubir Bhagat, Sala of Ram Prasad Bhagat in Court auction. The defendants have denied that Ramudgar Rai was in any way connected with the family of Balgovind Rai. He was an imposter. He also pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Balgobind had three another brothers, namely, Sankar, Ramkhelawan and Faujdar. They came in possession of the property. The joint property was partitioned among the brothers and each of them came in possession of 2 Bigha 10 Katha 6 dhur out of total area of 10 Bihgas 11 Katha 8 dhurs. The heirs of brothers of Balgobind were not impleaded. Balgobind had three another brothers, namely, Sankar, Ramkhelawan and Faujdar. They came in possession of the property. The joint property was partitioned among the brothers and each of them came in possession of 2 Bigha 10 Katha 6 dhur out of total area of 10 Bihgas 11 Katha 8 dhurs. The heirs of brothers of Balgobind were not impleaded. According to the evidence, the mortgaged land remained in possession of the ancestor first party as mortgagee till 1937. Separate property was subsequent purchased in the name of Most. Iswharbati Devi. The partition took place between them. The disputed property came to the share of defendants 1 to 3 and 5. According to the defendants case, no such mortgage was executed by Balgobind. What actually happened was that Balgobind executed a mortgage bond and kept the same with him. After sometime the entire amount was paid to him encash and he received back his Makboola with an endorsement of payment. 4. The learned Additional Munsif, who tried the suit considered the evidence adduced by the parties in detail. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Ramudgar Rai from whom the disputed property was purchased was the son of Balgobind. To prove that Balgobind was the father of Ramudgar Rai, the plaintiffs relied on voter list of village Gauspur which was prepared in 1971 i.e., after the institution of the suit. The learned Munsif held that voter list cannot be said to be a reliable document. The learned Munsif has observed that there was no averment in the plaint as to when and why Ramudgar shifted to Gauspur. It has come in evidence that Gauspur is the Nanihal of Ramudgar Rai. Oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs has been discussed in detail. None of the close relation of Ramudgar Rai has come forward to support the case. Parivad Patra which would have proved his parentage was not produced. 5. On behalf of the contesting defendants, evidence was led Balgobind, son of Chetu had two sons, namely, Kewala and Kailoo and to prove this fact defendant examined one Bhabi Thakur of village Baghi, an old man aged about 80 years. The trial Court was impressed by his evidence. Two other witnesses have stated that Ramudgar was not the son of Balgobind. 6. The trial Court was impressed by his evidence. Two other witnesses have stated that Ramudgar was not the son of Balgobind. 6. The next important issue whether Balgobind had executed a bond in favour of Ram Prasad Bhagat was also decided against the plaintiffs on consideration of relevant evidence. The finding is that he could not prove that mortgage was executed at the instance of Ram Prasad Bhagat. It was held by the Munsif that from the various entries of that accounts book, it is proved that money dues against Balgobind Gope was paid by him from 1921-1922 and there was no occasion for mortgage bond. The Court found that Ram Prasad never came in possession of the land as mortgagee nor they are in possession of the suit lands as mortgage. 7. The third important issue whether the suit property had been purchased by Raghubir Prasad Bhagat in Court auction was also decided in favour of the defendant. The evidence, regarding possession, adduced by the plaintiffs held to be not sufficient to prove their possession. The Court found that the evidence adduced on behalf of Raghubir Prasad Bhagat to prove his possession is cogent and reliable evidence. The Court further held that Raghubir Prasad Bhagat was the actually purchaser of the suit land. The Court further held that the suit for redemption was not maintainable. 8. The appellate Court, however, committed a serious error in comparing the L.T.I, of Ramudgar Rai (Exts. 4 and 4/a) and at the end of the deposition of D.W. 1 and found no similarity to the L.T.I, at the end of the deposition. This approach of the appellate Court cannot be appreciated. The appellate Court has considered the entire evidence and affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 9. The learned Judge who admitted this appeal has formulated the following points for decisions: (a) Whether the suit and the consequent appeal have abated under Section 4(1)(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of. Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956? (b) Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law in ignoring the deed of mortgage and not accepting the plaintiffs case of title and their right to redeem? 10. Mr. Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956? (b) Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law in ignoring the deed of mortgage and not accepting the plaintiffs case of title and their right to redeem? 10. Mr. Ram Suhawan Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and some of the important documents field on behalf of the plaintiffs have also not considered. 11. So far the first question formulated for consideration is concerned, in my view, since there is no evidence to show that the consolidation proceeding was going on at any stage during the pendency of the suit. This plea cannot be allowed to raise for the first time in a second appeal. 12. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Gorakh Nath Dube V/s. Hart Narain Singh -- . In the said case, the Supreme Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter for fresh decision. The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent decree in favour of the plaintiff. In Gorakh Nath Dubeys case the high Court after rejecting the preliminary objection of defendants, the appeal has abated owing to an application under Sec. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation Act, 1954 and proceeded to decide the appeal on merit. The matter went to Supreme Court. It was argued that the High Court should have held that the suit had abated under the provision of Sec. 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation Act. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred and set aside the decree of the High Court. This decision is not applicable because no such plea was taken in the lower appellate Court, nor the plaint was amended. 13. The second question does not arise because the entire finding is based on consideration of mortgage bond which was challenged by the contesting defendants. This Court in Second Appeal cannot enter into the evidence as to whether the findings are justified or not. 14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court cannot grant any relief to the appellants. The appeal is dismissed without costs.