Order This appeal is against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Title Appeal No. 14 of 1996/17 of 2002 upholding and confirming the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge I, Jamtara in Title (Partition) Suit No. 52 of 1986. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the said suit praying a decree for partition of their share in the suit property described in Schedules 'A', 'B', 'B/1', 'B/2', 'C' and 'D' of the plaint. 3. According to the plaintiffs, the parties are the descendents of one common ancestor. The suit lands were held and possessed jointly by Dayal Mahato and Jadu Mahato during the last survey operations. Jadu was the own nephew of Dayal. Dayal Mahato died issueless leaving behind a widow, who subsequently left the place and remarried one Futik Mahto. Jadu Mahto, subsequently, died leaving behind five sons and one daughter. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the descendents of said Jadu Mahto and they have been enjoying joint possession of the suit land. There has been no partition among the family members by metes and bounds. In view of the expansion of family, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to partition the suit property, but the same was refused, which led to institution of the suit. The defendants No.1 and 2 Kanhai Mahato and Dhananjay Mahato, who are the own brothers of the plaintiffs contested the suit. Other defendants did not file any written statement. In the written statement the defendants, though admitted the genealogy, stated that there was no unity of title and possession among the parties. Jadu Mahto and Dayal Mahto had separated prior to last survey operations and after death of Dayal Mahto, the property of his share was inherited by his wife Nemi Mahtain. Defendants denied that Nemi Mahtain had left the place and remarried one Futik Mahto. The widow of Dayal Mahto, due to the disturbance and the quarrel with the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, left the house and began to stay with her parents till her death. After death of Nemi Mahtain, the properties of Dayal Mahato came in the hands of these defendants in exclusion of the right, title of the plaintiffs. The defendants denied that the property of Dayal Mahato is the joint family property. 4. The parties led their evidences, oral and documentary. After death of Nemi Mahtain, the properties of Dayal Mahato came in the hands of these defendants in exclusion of the right, title of the plaintiffs. The defendants denied that the property of Dayal Mahato is the joint family property. 4. The parties led their evidences, oral and documentary. Several issues were framed by the Trial Court and after thorough discussion and consideration of evidences and materials on record, the Court below came to the finding that the plaintiffs and the defendants constituted a joint Hindu family and after the death of Dayal and Jadu Mahto the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly inherited the suit property and the defendants failed to prove any previous partition between Dayal and Jadu. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to get their share on partition. The defendants, then, preferred appeal in the Court of District Judge, Jamtara which was registered as Title Appeal No. 14 of 1996. The appeal was heard and disposed of by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamtara by the impugned judgment and decree. Learned Lower Appellate Court, in view of the grounds taken by the appellants, also thoroughly considered the facts, evidences and materials on record and framed specific points for consideration. Learned Lower Appellate Court, after due scrutiny and consideration of the evidences on record, came to the finding that the family is still joint and the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint have been not partitioned. Learned Lower Appellate Court also, thus, concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 5. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the judgments• and decrees of learned Courts below are illegal and perverse as learned Courts below have not properly considered the evidences adduced by the parties. Learned counsel submitted that the defendants have properly proved that there was partition between Jadu and Dayal Mahto and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the property held by Dayal Mahto, but learned Court below has erroneously decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. After hearing learned counsel and on perusal of the judgment and decree, I find that learned Trial Court considered all the oral and documentary evidences in detail and has come to the finding that the defendants failed to prove their plea of previous partition. 6. After hearing learned counsel and on perusal of the judgment and decree, I find that learned Trial Court considered all the oral and documentary evidences in detail and has come to the finding that the defendants failed to prove their plea of previous partition. Learned Trial Court held that the property is still joint and that the plaintiffs are entitled to get their share. Learned Lower Appellate Court has also thoroughly discussed and considered the evidences on record and has come to the finding that the property is still joint and there was no previous partition between Dayal and Jadu and that the plaintiffs are entitled to get his share on partition. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court have, thus, concurrently found the said facts in favour of the plaintiffs. The said findings are based on thorough appraisal and consideration of the evidences on record and no legal infirmity could be pointed out by learned counsel giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court. I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly dismissed.