Judgment 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 18 of 1989 by 1st Additional District Judge, Saran, Chapra, setting aside the judgment passed by Munsif lllrd, Chapra in Title Suit No. 2 of 1984. 2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that Jhamak Mian had four sons, namely, Farjan, Garjan, Arjan and Dasai. Dasai died issueless and Garjan migrated to village Arwan where he died. Arjan was living in village Babahi and later migrated to Parshurampur. All the sons of Jhamak Mian were separate and were earning their livelihood separately. After the death of Farjan, his entire property were inherited by his two sons, namely, Moharam Mian (the plaintiff) and Saheb Mian (defendant no. 2), and the brother of Farjan had no concern with his property. It is claimed that disputed plot no. 100, area 8 Katha 2 dhurs mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint had been acquired by Farjan through sale deed before revisional survey and accordingly his name was entered in R.S. Khatian and disputed plot no. 26 mentioned in Schedule II of the plaint was acquired after revisional survey through sale deed and after his death, the disputed lands have been coming in possession of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2. The plaintiff and defendant no. 2 came to know in the month of jeth 1390 Fas/ithat defendant no. 3, Ibrahim Mian had executed sale deeds in respect of 4 katha 1 dhur of the disputed plot no. 100 and 3 kathas of disputed plot no. 26 in favour of Narendra Kumar Singh @ Bhagat Singh (defendant no. 1) on 8.3.1982 and 21.11.1978 respectively but he never came in possession of these lands. It is further claimed that Zarpeshgi deed dated 31.1.1974 and 26.4.1971 executed in favour of Raghunath Singh and defendant no. 1, mentioned in the aforesaid sale deeds are forged document and not binding on the plaintiff, and have been executed only to create evidence. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his right and title and confirmation of his possession over the disputed land detailed in Schedule I & II of plaint and also for recovery of his possession in case the plaintiff is found out of possession. 3. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his right and title and confirmation of his possession over the disputed land detailed in Schedule I & II of plaint and also for recovery of his possession in case the plaintiff is found out of possession. 3. The contesting defendants 1, 3 & 4 in their written statement have contended that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff has no cause of action. The family of the parties were joint and for the sake of convenience Farjan and Arjan separated in mess and business after the death of their father Jhamak Mian. Jhamak Mian had acquired the disputed plot no. 100 bearing area 8 katha 2 dhurs from the joint income of the family in the name of his eldest son Farjan Mian and after his death his sons, namely, Farjan and Arjan came in joint possession of the same. The properties acquired after revisional survey was also acquired in the state of jointness and consideration money was paid by both the brothers. As Farjan was eldest and managing member of the family, the property was acquired in his name. It is said that the disputed property was not the exclusive property of Farjan rather it was joint property of Farjan and Arjan in which both have half and half share. Defendant nos. 3 & 4, Ibrahim Mian and his mother transferred the suit land in favour of defendant no. 1, Narendra Kumar Singh and put him in possession. 4. The trial court on consideration of the pleading as well as evidence both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the suit land is self acquired property of Farjan Mian and his brother Arjan Mian had no concern with that land and the sale deeds executed by Ibrahim Mian and his mother in favour of defendant no. 1 are void document. The lower appellate court on appeal reversed the findings of the trial court by holding that the family properties were jointly possessed by Farjan and Arjan and the disputed lands, which are half portion of plot nos. 100 and 26 measuring 4 katha 1 dhur and 3 kathas respectively had fallen in the share of Arjan Mian, brother of Farjan Mian, which was inherited by Ibrahim, who executed the sale deed in question in favour of defendant no. 100 and 26 measuring 4 katha 1 dhur and 3 kathas respectively had fallen in the share of Arjan Mian, brother of Farjan Mian, which was inherited by Ibrahim, who executed the sale deed in question in favour of defendant no. 1, hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the lower appellate court has not assigned any reason while discarding the evidence of P.Ws. He further submitted that the lower appellate court has failed to consider Ex-hibit-8, the certified copy of Khatiyan and Exhibit-2, certified copy of mortgage deed, which shows that plot no. 100 is recorded in the name of Farjan Mian and in possession of Khelu Singh as mortgagee. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring Section 57 of the Principles of Mahomedan Law submitted that the Personal Law of Muslims does not recognise the system of joint holding as is common amongst Hindus. The acquisition of property independently by a member cannot automatically be said to be for the benefit of the family. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim V/s. Syed Muhammad Abbubakker, reported in A.I.R. 1976 Madras 84, Leela Soni & Ors. V/s. Rajesh Goyal & Ors., reported in (2001) 7 S.C.C. 494 , Deena Nath V/s. Pooran Lal, reported in (2001) 5 S.C.C. 705 , Maharaja Bahadur Ramranbijaya Prasad Singh V/s. Naubat Rai & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1942 Patna 346, Smt. Purni Devi V/s. Shibu Mahton & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1971 Patna 249, Ashok Kumar Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1994 (1) B.L.J. 144 and Neela Kantan & Ors. V/s. Mallika Begum, reported in (2002) 2 S.C.C. 440 . 6. There cannot be any dispute that Mahomedan are governed by their Personal Law and that there is no law that Mahomedan family are joint nor there is concept of Kartaship or coparcenary, but in view of Section 57 of Mahomedan Law if during the continuance of the family, properties are acquired in the name of managing member of the family and it is proved that they are possessed by all the members jointly, then the presumption is that they are the properties of the family and not separate property of the member of in whose name it stands. 7. 7. The lower appellate court in paragraph 11 to 13 has considered elaborately the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and found that Arjan Mian, brother of Farjan Mian and his son Ibrahim had dealt with half portion of the disputed land long before the institution of the case and they executed the mortgage deeds to different persons and mortgagee were cultivating this land and these documents cannot be said to be collusive. The l ower appellate court in paragraph 16 of its judgment has found that the execution of sale deed in respect of only three katha i.e. half portion of plot no. 26 by Farjan Mian vide Exhibit-A/4 is a strong circumstance to suggest that Farjan had admitted the share of Arjan Mian and allowed him to execute the zarpeshgi deed in respect of remaining three kathas. The lower appellate court considering Exhibit-8, Khatiyan and sale deeds of 1940 (Exhibit-A/6) recorded its finding that it is true that these documents are in the exclusive name of Farjan Mian but the documents filed by the defendant as well as oral evidence adduced by the parties go to prove that these properties were acquired by Farjan as managing member of the family and the properties were in joint possession of both the brothers. Having regard to the evidence led by the parties, this Court does not find any relevance of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the clear findings of the lower appellate court. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has failed to show any infirmity in the findings recorded by the lower appellate court. Thus, in my opinion, the judgment of the lower appellate court does not warrant any interference in Second Appeal. 9. As the matter stands concluded by the findings of facts by the lower appellate court based on evidence this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, moreso, when no substantial question of law has been argued. This appeal is, thus, dismissed summarily.