Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of affirmance passed in Title Appeal No. 2/96 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Begusarai. 2. The defendants are the appellants. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title over the suit land measuring 8 dhurs of S.P. No. 3747 and for decree of injunction restraining the defendant-appellants and also Respondent, 2nd party from disturbing peaceful possession over the said land. 3. The case of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is that he purchased the suit land from one Tek Narain Jha and his son Dev Narain Jha, who are legal heirs of Uma Mishrain, the recorded tenant by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 28-5-1981 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000. His further case is that the husband of Uma Mishrain, Ishwari Jha had three brothers, namely, Parmeshwari Jha, Hanuman Jha and Bhawani Jha, out of them except Bhawani Jha all died issueless and he is purchaser of the suit land from the branch of Bhawani Jha, and that Thakkar Jha from whom defendants purchased 16 dhurs of the said plot on 11-7-1984 by a registered sale-deed has/had no concern with the family of Uma Mish rain and did not confer any title to the defendants. The cause of action for filing the suit arose when the defendants threatened the plaintiff to dispossess him from the plot in question. Defendants filed written statement denying completely the plaintiffs story. The defendants stated that Uma Mishrain died leaving behind a daughter Parvati Devi, married with Krishna Lal Jha who had a brother Raghunandan Jha. Thakkar Jha, who is grand-son of Raghunandan Jha, is the only descendant. Admittedly, Title Suit No. 61 of 1985 was earlier filed by the defendant-appellants against the plaintiff-respondents in which Pleader Commissioner was appointed, who has been examined in the present suit as P.W. 8. His evidence together with his report (Exhibit-4) indicates that after inspection he found possession of the plaintiff-Respondent 1st party over the suit land. Admittedly, Title Suit No. 61 of 1985 was earlier filed by the defendant-appellants against the plaintiff-respondents in which Pleader Commissioner was appointed, who has been examined in the present suit as P.W. 8. His evidence together with his report (Exhibit-4) indicates that after inspection he found possession of the plaintiff-Respondent 1st party over the suit land. Besides this, other witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and documentary evidence have also been produced, on consideration of which both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has brought satisfactory and convincing evidence on record to indicate that Ishwari Jha, Hanuman Jha, Bhawani Jha and Parmeshwari Jha were full brothers and after the death of Uma Mishrain, the suit land was possessed by the sons of Bhawani Jha and the plaintiff purchased it from Tek Narain Jha, one of the legal heirs of Uma Mishrain. As per the defendant appellants, they purchased the entire 16 dhurs of plot No. 3747 from Thakkar Jha by registered sale-deed 11-7-1984, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-A. The lower appellate Court on consideration of the same has found that the recital made in Exhibit-A indicates that Uma Mishrain and Parbati Devi was one and the same lady and has, thus, disbelieved the case of the defendant-appellants that Uma Mishrain had a daughter Parbati Devi. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has, however, contended that the learned Courts below have erred in law in relying upon the plaintiff s witnesses to prove the relationship without disclosing the source of knowledge. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, in absence of disclosure of source of knowledge the evidence of P.Ws. were inadmissible in view of the provisions contained in sec. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . It is contended that the defendants witnesses categorically deposed on the point of possession of the appellants over the entire 16 dhurs of land and on their cross-examination, their credibility is not doubted by the Court, yet their evidence has not been accepted merely because no chit of paper has been filed. Learned Counsel also contended that the lower appellate Court has erred in disbelieving the case of the defendant-appellants that Uma Mishrain had a daughter Parbati Devi solely relying upon Exhibit-A. 5. Learned Counsel also contended that the lower appellate Court has erred in disbelieving the case of the defendant-appellants that Uma Mishrain had a daughter Parbati Devi solely relying upon Exhibit-A. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that both the Courts have on detailed consideration of evidence come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the fact that Ishwari Jha, Hanumani Jha, Bhawani Jha and Parmeshwari Jha are full brothers and that Uma Mishrain, widow of Ishwari Jha died issueless and after her death Bhawani Jha and his legal heirs came in possession over the suit land from whom the plaintiff purchased 8 dhurs of C.S. plot No. 3747. It has also been found that the defendant-appellants have completely failed to establish that they were not full brothers and also that Uma Mishrain died leaving behind a daughter, namely, Parbati Devi in which there is no infirmity and do not suffer from any perversity. As such, according to the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the appellants have completely failed to make out any ground for interference with the concurrent findings of fact, more so in absence of any substantial question of law involved. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents. After going through the judgment of the Courts below, I find that the lower appellate Court while affirminy the judgment of the trial Court has considered the entire evidence in detail. He has also rightly considered the recital made in Exhibit-A which indicates that Uma Mishrain and Parbati was one and the same lady. The said sale-deed has been executed by Thakkar Jha (P.W. 4). The lower appellate Court has rightly held that he is bound by the recitals made in Exhibit-A. The lower appellate Court has, thus, rightly found that the defendant-appellants have failed completely to establish that Ishwari Jha, Hanumani Jha, Bhawani Jha and Parmeshwari Jha were not full brothers and also that Uma Mishrain died leaving behind daughter, namely, Most. Parbati. As the said question stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact by the two Courts below, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal warranting interference. 7. The appeal is, thus, dismissed in limine.