Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28-6-1997 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Betiah (West Champaran) in Title Appeal No. 61 of 1996 whereby the appeal has been allowed in part decreeing the plaintiffs suit in part by setting aside the judgment and decree of dismissal recorded by the Munsif, Bagaha in Title Suit No. 66 of 1994. 2. The appellants as plaintiffs had field Title Suit No. 66 of 1994 on the following contentions that one Raju Chamar was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants and he was appointed as a Goriat by the Batia Raj and the land in question was allotted to him in lieu of his service and his name was recorded also in the revisional survey khatiyan. He worked till 1927 as gorait and after him one Shyam Lai Dusadh was appointed as Goriat and the disputed land came in possession of Shyam Lai Dusadh as the lands were being allotted goriatwise and after Shyam Lai Dusadh, the father of the plaintiffs, Triveni Mahra was appointed as gorait and the disputed land came in possession of the plaintiffs as goriaiti zagir and since then the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the land any by a Rent Fixation Case No. 209/1963 the rent for the disputed land was fixed in the name of Anant Mahra. A Partition Suit No. 484/1972 was filed by the father of the defendants seeking partition with respect to the disputed land in the Court of Sub-Judge, Motihari but the same was dismissed. A proceeding was brought from the side of the defendants under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. against the plaintiffs in which the possession of the plaintiffs was declared and the defendants were restrained. According to the plaintiffs, a portion of the disputed land was sold and granted to different persons and the purchaser are continuing in possession over the land and also under the consolidation scheme, the Consolidation Officer prepared the records of raiyat in the name of the plaintiffs by his order dated 6-4-1992. but the said order was set aside by the appellate authority on 20-4-1993 against which the plaintiffs moved in revision before the Joint Director, Consolidation. but the said order was set aside by the appellate authority on 20-4-1993 against which the plaintiffs moved in revision before the Joint Director, Consolidation. Tirkut Division but no final order could be passed and the proceeding was stopped because of withdrawal of the notification and hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs. 3. The defendants by filing written statement have admitted that originally the suit land was settled with Raju Chamar, who died leaving behind two sons, Chhatu and Triveni Chamar. The lands were partitioned amongst the heirs of Chhatu and Triveni Chamar and the half land remained in possession of the plaintiffs and the half in possession of the defendants. After framing several issues, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to proved that the lands were being settled goriatwise and that lastly the lands were settled in the name of Triveni Mehra, the predecessor of the plaintiffs and as such the suit was dismissed. On appeal being preferred the appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the lands were being settled goriatwise but as there was admission from the side of the defendants to the effect that the land was originally settled with Raju Chamar, common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants and that khatiyan was issued in the name of Raju Chamar and when it could not be proved that the lands were being settled time to time goriatwise then the original settlement in favour of Raju Chamar remained who was predecessor-in-interest of both the sides and as per the defence case the half of the suit land was in their favour and the half remained in possession of the plaintiffs by amicable partition. The suit was decreed in part holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree regarding title and interest in respect of half of the suit property. 4. This appeal was being once heard by a Bench of this Court and vide the order dated 12-7-2001 substantial questions of law were framed in the following manner: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is bad for non-consideration of the material evidence available on the records of the case in its proper perspective and as such the same is fit to be set aside. And then it was held that the appeal could be disposed of at this stage itself and as such the lower Court records were called for and opportunities were being given to be heard finally on the appeal itself. The appeal was heard inter-parties and then vide the order dated 26-7-2001 and opportunity was given to the parties to arrive at a compromise but ultimately no compromise has been arrived at. 5 The admitted position remains that the suit property was settled with Raju Chamar, the common ancestor of both the parties although in the khatiyan in the year 1927 as per re-settlement, it was mentioned that Raju Chamarwas settled with the land as Goriat of Betia Raj but afterwards it could not be shown by any cogent evidence that the lands had been transferred from one Goriat to another Goriat although admittedly after Raju Chamar, Shyam Lal Dusadh was appointed as Goriat and after him Triveni Mehra, the predecessor of the plaintiffs but neither any documentary nor any oral evidence could be adduced in support of the plaintiffs case that after Raju Chamar gave up his service as Goriat, the land was settled with the next Goriat and ultimately to Triveni Mehra, the predecessor of the plaintiffs. Rather position remains as per the admission by the parties and also through revenue records that the land was settled with Raju Chamar, the original common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants. So legally it flows that the land in suit devolved as per inheritance on the death of Raju Chamar and after him on the death of his two sons, Chhatu and Triveni Chamar. So the evidence adduced from the side of the defendants and the admission being made it could be found that the defendants were in possession of half of the suit land as per amicable partition being made and the plaintiffs are in half portion but it could not be shown by any cogent evidence as to which half went to which party and as such the appellate Court has decreed the suit on admission being made from the side of the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs regarding declaration of title and possession in respect of unascertained half of the suit property. Nowhere it can be said that the appellate Court has committed any error. 6. Nowhere it can be said that the appellate Court has committed any error. 6. This second appeal has been preferred in respect of the half portion of the suit land for which the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed declaring title and possession in favour of the defendants. In respect of other portion of the decree being granted by the appellate Court, decree of title and possession in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants has not been challenged nor there is any cross-appeal from the side of the defendants-respondents. Practically no question of cross-appeal arises when the suit has been decreed as per the admission made from the side of the defendants. I do not find that the learned appellate Court has committed any error of law. The original Court dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiffs could not prove that the land was being settled goriatwise time to time but he lost sight of the fact that the original settlement was with Raju Chamar, who happened to be the common ancestor of both the plaintiffs and the defendants and as such when he died leaving behind two sons then the property was devolved on those two sons on the death of Raju Chamar and after the death of the two sons, the same would devolve on plaintiffs and defendants half and half, The learned appellate Court has considered the same in its proper perspective and then decreed the plaintiffs suit regarding half of the suit land. I do not find that any intrinsic question of law or substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal rather the appellate Courts judgment is proper and justified on the basis of the materials on record and on factual aspect alone. Thus I do not find any forced in this appeal. Hence, the same is rejected.