Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Defendant No. 18 is the appellant against a judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-8-99, passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Madhubani, in Title Partition Appeal No. 69 of 1998 (Ganesh Chandra Jha V/s. Parmeshwar Thakur and Ors), whereby he has dismissed the appeal of defendant No. 18 (the appellant herein), and has upheld the final decree dated 25-11-98, passed by the learned Munsif 1st Court, Madhubani, in Partition Suit No. 111 of 1971 (Parmeshwar Thakur V/s. Niranjana Devi). 2. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs had preferred Title Partition Appeal No. 7 of 1975 against the dismissal of the suit which was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madhubani, by his judgment dated 20-8-77. He directed that the Pleader Commissioner will carve out the Takhtas with respect to the the possession of the parties as far as practicable. One Shri P.K Sinha was appointed as the Pleader Commissioner who submitted his report dated 11 -4-79, but the same was rejected on the objection of defendant No. 17, vide order dated 22-7-80, passed by the learned Munsif. Thereafter one Shri Yadubir Jha was appointed as the second Pleader Commissioner whose report was also rejected on the objection of the parties by order dated 3-4-93, passed by the learned Munsif 1st Court, Madhubani. He recorded the following directions for the Pleader Commissioner in paragraph 4 of the judgment which is reproduced hereinbelow: (a) The pleader commissioner will allot a compact block to each party. (b) If the plaintiffs house stands over north east portion, he will not disturb their possession. (c) He will allot the land to defendant No. 17 appellant adjacent to his land. (d) He will give passage of ten feet wide at least, connecting the land of defendant No. 17 appellant with road in east and this land covered in road will be adjusted in the share of defendant No. 17 appellant. The present appellant had challenged the said order dated 3-4-93 by preferring Civil Revision No. 1043 of 1993 (Uma Kant Jha V/s. Shital Thakur), which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 6-8-93. The present appellant had challenged the said order dated 3-4-93 by preferring Civil Revision No. 1043 of 1993 (Uma Kant Jha V/s. Shital Thakur), which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 6-8-93. It was held by the High Court that the aforesaid directions given by the learned Munsif by his order dated 3-4-93 were in one sense redundant, because the same were repetition of the directions given by the appellate Court. 3. Thereafter one Madan Mohan Mishra was appointed Pleader Commissioner who submitted his report. Defendant No. 17 raised certain objections with respect to the same which were over-ruled by the learned Munsif by his order dated 25-8-94, and the third Pleader Commissioners report was affirmed. The same was challenged before this Court by preferring Civil Revision No. 1746 of 1994, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated 21-4-95. Therefore, Takhtas on the basis of the third Pleader Commissioners report has been upheld by the learned Court of appeal below by the impugned judgment. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant has formulated the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court: (1). Whether the final decree is at variance with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court which specifically directed the Pleader Commissioner while carving out Takhtas, he will respect the present possession of the parties as far as practicable? (2). Whether the executing Court below was competent to give direction to the pleader commissioner carving out takhta (Pattibandi) of its own against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court? (3). Whether as against the definite case of the plaintiffs-respondents 1st party that they had already sold nine Dhurs of the suit plots as also against the relief sought for by them in their plaint for a decree excluding those 9 dhurs, Pattibandi made by the pleader commissioner in the final decree can be held to be in consonance with the judgment and decree? (4) The learned Court of appeal below has erred in holding that the appeal before him is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has strenuously countered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. 6. (4) The learned Court of appeal below has erred in holding that the appeal before him is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has strenuously countered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. 6. I would first of all like to deal with the aforesaid first three questions together. The three questions in substance raise objections to the pleader commissioners report. I am of the considered view that these are questions of facts having been dealt with elaborately by the Courts below, are no longer open to challenge at the instance of the aggrieved party in second appellate jurisdiction. The mode and manner of disposing of appeals against final decrees and Takhtabandi has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jugeshwar Singh V/s. Rijhan Singh, reported in A.I.R. 1938 Patna 104. The Division Bench has held as follows: ... The Subordinate Judge when he makes the final decree considers, first, the report of the Commissioner; the Commissioner has been to the spot, has heard the contentions of the parties and the evidence which the parties produced before him and then to the best of his ability directed the partition by. metes and bounds, taking into consideration the element of compactness, the element of equality, the nature of the land to be divided and many other circumstances which he must take into account and then submits his report to the Subordinate Judge. It is then open to any party, who is dissatisfied with the takhta allotted, to ask the Subordinate Judge to disregard the report of the Commissioner; and the Subordinate Judge again reviews the facts and corrects the award of the Commissioner. Therefore, a first appeal to this Court from the order of the Subordinate Judge is really in the nature of a second appeal in which only questions of law and principle can be considered. It is quite impossible for the Court to go down to the area in question, inspect the land, hear the various objectors and in fact review the decision of the Commissioner on fact. The power to review the decision of the Commissioner on the facts is a matter for the Subordinate Judge, and his view of the facts ought to be final as a first appellate decision on fact. The power to review the decision of the Commissioner on the facts is a matter for the Subordinate Judge, and his view of the facts ought to be final as a first appellate decision on fact. The High Court should only interfere when it is shown that the Judge in his decision has gone wrong on some question of principle in making the final allotment and in drawing up the decree ... Relying on the aforesaid judgment in the case of Jugeshwar Singh V/s. Rijhan Singh (supra), another Division Bench of this Court held in the case of Ambika Bhawani Devi V/s. Gouri Kumari Devi, reported in A.I.R. (34) 1947 Patna 271, that where a Commissioner is appointed to effect partition, the power to review his decision on the facts is a matter for the Subordinate Judge who passed the final decree, and his view of the facts ought to be final, unless some question of principle in making the final allotment and drawing up the decree is involved. The High Court in both the cases was dealing with a first appeal. Relying on the aforesaid decisions of this Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in his judgment dated 7-9-9S, passed in F.A. No. 114 of 1974 (Janak Rai V/s. Bahuria Lai Devi), has held to the same effect. The Hon ble Judge has also referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in A.I.R. 1929 Madras 492 (Krishna Reddiar V/s. Ramanuj Reddiar). The judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2000(3) PLJR 276 (Binay Krishna V/s. Raj Kumar Prasad), is to the same effect. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Jugeshwar Singh V/s. Rijhan Singh (supra), I have myself held to the same effect in the following judgments: (i) 1999 (3) PLJR 195 (Ram Briksh Mistryv. Most. Sakuntala Devi) (ii) 1999(3) All Patna Law Reports 476 (Bachi Devi V/s. Raghawendra Shahi) 7. It must be remembered that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two cases was dealing with First Appeals. The position is far more difficult for the appellant in a Second Appeal in so far as objections to the final decree and Takhtabandi on the basis of a pleader commissioners report is concerned. It must be remembered that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two cases was dealing with First Appeals. The position is far more difficult for the appellant in a Second Appeal in so far as objections to the final decree and Takhtabandi on the basis of a pleader commissioners report is concerned. The scope of interference with Takhtabandi in a Second Appeal as the present one is, therefore, far less than a first appeal. In that view of the matter, I reach the conclusion that the objections to final decree and Takhtabandi in the present case are concluded by findings of fact and cannot be allowed to be raised in second appellate jurisdiction. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 8. In so far as the last contention of the appellant is concerned, the same is stated only to be rejected. The learned Court of appeal below has incidentally touched the question of maintainability of the appeal before him towards the end of the judgment after having discussed and rejected the appeal on merits. He was not non-suited on the ground of maintainability of the appeal. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.