Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal, at the instance of defendants 1 to 3, is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Gopalganj, in Title Appeal No. 3/95, 129/95, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to the extent that the plaintiff respondent has been declared entitled to 1/3rd share in Schedules 1 and 2 property. 2. The suit was filed by Raufan, the original plaintiff. Her husband Rabeddin was Defendant No. 4 and after his death, their son Gayasuddin was finally substituted in her place by transposition as the sole plaintiff. The suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the property described in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the plaint. The genealogy as given at the foot of the plaint is as under: Rajbali Mian ____________________________________________________________________________ _____ | | Sk. Saheb Hussain SK. Gulam Hussain Sk. Mohammad =Most. Reshmi =Most Hamidan =Ba harni ______________________________ Basiran Jasiran | =Rahim | Sk. Rabeddin | ___________________________| ___ Jumarati Kita ban Abiddin Rauf an pltf. Ajarsan D-1 Rabe ddin D-4 | | Gaya suddin _______________________|_ Alauddin Ezazrul D-2 Haque D-3 3. According to the case of the plaintiff, Sk. Saheb Hussain died leaving behind his widow Most. Reshmi who succeeded to the extent of 4 annas share in the property of Saneb Hussain while Sk. Gulam Hussain and Sk. Mohammad inherited 6 annas each from his property. Subsequently, Gulam Hussain died leaving behind Hamidan and Basiran and, thus, his widow Hamidan succeeded 2 annas interest and Basiran to the extent of 7 annas interest. The remaining 7 annas went to Sk. Mohammad. After the death of Hamidan, Defendant No. 4 Sk. Abeddin succeeded 9 annas interest in the property left by Gulam Hussain. Further case of the plaintiff is that Sk. Mohammad died leaving behind his widow Baharani, son Jumarati and daughter Bibi Kitaban. Kitaban had one daughter Raufan (original plaintiff) who was married to Sk. Rabeddin son of Basiran who was also her cousin. The present plaintiff was born out of the wedlock between Raufan and Rabeddin. Abeddin, the only son of Sk. Jumarati, predeceased him. Jumarati executed a deed of gift dated 20.1.1987 in favour of Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 as, according to the Mohammedan Law, the defendant would have been deprived of the property left behind by him. The present plaintiff was born out of the wedlock between Raufan and Rabeddin. Abeddin, the only son of Sk. Jumarati, predeceased him. Jumarati executed a deed of gift dated 20.1.1987 in favour of Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 as, according to the Mohammedan Law, the defendant would have been deprived of the property left behind by him. Likewise, Katakana also executed a deed of gift of her interest in favour of the original plaintiff Raufan by a registered deed on 13.3.1984. The property was being jointly utilised and enjoyed by both the branches. The plaintiff demanded partition which was refused. Hence, the suit was filed. 4. The defendants filed their written statement in which the genealogy given by the plaintiff is by and large admitted. However, they denied that Kitaban was the daughter of Sk. Mohammad. According to them, Kitaban was the sister of Sk. Rahim (husband of, Basiran) and belonged to village Bhusanw as she was married to Mumtaj Ali of Inerwa. The defendants, thus, challenged the deed of gift executed by Kitaban as being incompetent. The question of inheritance of shares has also been challenged because of variation in the date of the death. 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit and thereupon the plaintiff filed the appeal in which decree has been passed in his favour, as mentioned above. 6. Before the lower appellate Court the main points emerged for consideration were (i) as to whether Kitaban was the daughter of Sk. Mohammad or she was the sister of Sk. Rahim of Bhusanw who was married to Mumtaj Ali, as alleged by the defendant and (ii) whether Basiran predeceased Gulam Hussain or she surviving him inherited 7 an as share in his property. The lower appellate Court on detailed consideration of two rival stories regarding daughtership of Kitaban set up by the parties held that Kitaban is the daughter of Sk. Mohammad of Sareya Narendra and not the daughter of Mohammad Hussain of Bhusanw. The lower appellate Court has fully considered the evidence, documentary as well as oral, from paragraph 14 to paragraph 21 and has also discussed about the erroneous approach of the trial Court. 7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the lower appellate Court has committed gross error in not considering the documents like Exts. 3, 3/A, 4, 5 and 5/A etc. 7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the lower appellate Court has committed gross error in not considering the documents like Exts. 3, 3/A, 4, 5 and 5/A etc. and also has not given any reason for not agreeing with the finding of the trial Court. It is submitted that the trial Court held that Kitaban was not the daughter of Sk. Mohammad and thus the deed of fight executed by her in favour of Raufan (original plaintiff) is void. In support of his contention that misconception of issue or true question; in controversy is an error of law, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Bhikhan Qassab v. Mardan Ali, reported in A.I.R. 1920 Patna 359, wherein it has been held by the learned single Judge that omission to decide the important issue or to consider oral evidence is substantial error. He has also placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court in the case of The Secretary to Govt, Home Deptt. and Anr. v. T.V. Hah Rao , to support his contention that misconstruing of evidence and acting without evidence is a substantial question of law. 8. I fail to appreciate as to how the said decisions are of any help to the appellants in the present case. The lower appellate Court has considered the entire evidence, documentary as well as oral, led by the parties and has also discussed on both the questions, namely, whether Kitaban was the daughter of Sk. Mohammad and whether Basiran predeceased Gulam Hussain or she surviving him inherited 7 annas interest in his property. On the first point, the lower appellate Court has fully discussed the evidence in praragraph 14 to 21 and on the question as to whether Basiran predeceased her father or surviving him inherited 7 annas interest in his property, he has considered the evidence in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment. He has also considered Exts. 3/A and 4/A and has come to the conclusion that all such dealings clearly indicate that Basiran died after Gulam Hussain and she succeeded to the extent of 7 annas share in the property left behind by Gulam Hussain. 9. Earned Counsel for the appellants has failed to show that how Ext. He has also considered Exts. 3/A and 4/A and has come to the conclusion that all such dealings clearly indicate that Basiran died after Gulam Hussain and she succeeded to the extent of 7 annas share in the property left behind by Gulam Hussain. 9. Earned Counsel for the appellants has failed to show that how Ext. 5 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether Kitaban was the daughter of Sk. Mohammad. The lower appellate Court on consideration of the fact that the trial Court has placed much reliance on Ext. 7 series rather he has based his decision on the entry made in the voters list (Ext. 7 series) has examined the same and rightly found that the trial Court has committed grave error in making the voters list basis for computation of age. Further, he has also considered all the evidence, documentary as well as oral, to conclude that Kitaban is the daughter of Sk. Mohammad of Sareya Narendra and not the daughter of Mohammad Hussain of Bhusanw. No error has been pointed out by the earned Counsel for the appellants in the said finding. The plaintiffs claim of half share has not been accepted as according to the observation made by, this Court in the revision disallowing amendment of the plaint that the claim of the plaintiff has to be decided only on the basis of deed of gift, the lower appellate Court has declined to grant any relief. 10. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned. Do not find any infirmity in the impugned Judgment and, thus, the appeal is dismissed.