Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26-7-2000 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Munger in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1999 (7/2000) affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge II, Munger in Title Suit No. 219/87. Thus, the present Second Appeal is against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below. 2. The suit was filed by the Respondent 1st Party for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession from the Defendant-tenant. It was admitted from both the sides that the property in question belonged to one Sarswati Devi. She died in the year 1967 leaving behind her daughter, Bhagwati Devi and the Defendant-tenant admitted that they were tenant under Bhagwati Devi. Bhagwati Devi died issueless in the year 1984 and the plaintiff claims to be the heir of Bhagwati Devi. The genealogy runs as follows. 3. One Shiv Narain had two sons namely Hardwari Mall and Gulab Maharaj. Gulab Maharaj died issueless. They had a sister named Sarswati Devi and Sarswati Devi, died leaving behind her daughter, Bhagwati Devi, who also died issueless. Hardwari Mall, the brother of Sarswati Devi died leaving behind one son, Maghraj. Maghraj had two sons Parmeshwar and Hari. Parmeshwar died issueless and plaintiff is the son of Hari. His father, Hariram has been arrayed as a Defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiff, he inherited the property of Bhagwati Devi as she had heirs from her husbands side or there were no heirs from the husbands side of Sarswati Devi and as such it has been reverted to the brothers family of Sarswati Devi. 4. In the written statement filed by the Defendant as her son and as such on death of Bhagweti Devi the whole property had been devolved on the son of the Defendant and as such the tenancy, if any, had merged with the ownership of the Defendants son. It is an admitted position that the Defendant had failed to prove his case regarding his son being adopted by Bhagwati Devi. In the written statement it was further admitted that Hari was the inheritor on the death of Bhagwati Devi, and Hari got the suit instituted through his son. In that way, there is admission from the side of the Defendant thaj, Hariram was the inheritor of Bhagwati Devi vis-a-vis Sarswati Devi. 5. In the written statement it was further admitted that Hari was the inheritor on the death of Bhagwati Devi, and Hari got the suit instituted through his son. In that way, there is admission from the side of the Defendant thaj, Hariram was the inheritor of Bhagwati Devi vis-a-vis Sarswati Devi. 5. Both the Courts below by considering the evidence on record found that Hari had inherited on devolution from Bhagwati Devi both on admission from the side of the Defendant and also en oral evidence adduced from the side of the plaintiffs. Hari died during the pendency of the suit and he never raised objection about the title of the plaintiff. So, it was held by the Courts below that in between the plaintiff and Hariram there is no dispute about the title and for ejecting a trespasser one of the heirs can file a Suit even by not impleading other co-sharers but here Hari had been made Defendant in the Suit and on his death during the pendency of the Suit the absolute title had gone in favourofthe plaintiff. Thus there is concurrent findings of both the Courts below regarding the title of the plaintiff and as such the Suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of title and also for recovery of possession. 6. Before this Court Mr. Maitin, Advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that there was no heirs subsisting from the husbands side either of Bhagwati or Sarswati. In that could not be established and by admission the statutory position cannot be altered. This admission was made before the first appellate Court also of on the basis of that submission the evidence was scrutinised. It was admitted from the Defendants side during the course of evidence that there was no members either of the husbands family of Sarswati Devi or Bhagwati Devi. In that way by admission definitely it reverts back to the plaintiffs family when there is an admission from the side of the Defendant. Thus, it does not require that the plaintiff should prove the same when they were asserting the same from the very beginning and in the written statement also plaintiffs father. Hari Tantis title was admitted by showing that Hari got the suit filed through his son. Thus, it does not require that the plaintiff should prove the same when they were asserting the same from the very beginning and in the written statement also plaintiffs father. Hari Tantis title was admitted by showing that Hari got the suit filed through his son. Again it has been submitted by referring to Sec. 50 of the Evidence Act that the persons who have deposed regarding the relationship were not the fit persons to do so. This has also been considered by the appellate Court in his judgment and by referring to the evidence of different witnesses who had adduced to establish his relationship were found to be the fit persons to adduce to that effect. In that way, it cannot be said that the Courts below had come to a perverse finding rather on factual aspect on legacy there is concurrent findings by both the Courts below on independent scrutiny of the evidence on record. In that way paragraphs 23 and 31 of the trial Courts judgment and paragraph 8 of the Appellate Courts judgment may be specifically referred to. When concurrent findings are there on factual aspect and when no substantial question of law is involved, there is no force in this Second Appeal. Hence, the same is rejected under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.