JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Since both the Second Appeals have been preferred against the same judgments passed by the Courts below dismissing the Original Suit as well as counter claim set up by the Defendants and the two Civil Appeals, these Second Appeals are being decided by one and common judgment. 2. These Second Appeals have come up before this Court for admission today. 3. Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Somesh Khare, Smt. Komal Khare and Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the respondents as well as perused the materials on record, including the, judgments rendered by the trial Court, that is, Civil Judge (Junior Division), East, Ballia and the Lower Appellate Court, that is, the III Additional District Judge, Ballia. 4. These Second Appeals have been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2009, rendered by the Lower Appellate Court dismissing two Civil Appeals, filed by the appellants herein, that is, Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1998, Ram Prasad and others v. Chandrika Prasad and others and Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1998, Nanhe Lal and others v. Chandrika Prasad and others, to challenge the judgment and decree rendered by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), East, Ballia, on 4.2.1998 by which the Original Suit No. 76 of 1972 was dismissed and the counter claim set up by the appellants was also rejected. In the present case, while rendering the impugned judgments and decrees, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, rejecting the claim of the appellant, Nanhe Lal, seeking partition of the property in dispute. 5. It emerges from the record that the dispute relates to a Survey Plot No. 93/1, having an area of 60 decimal, situate at Neuri, Taluka, Jamua, Tehsil Ballia, District Ballia. An Original Suit NO. 76 of 1972 as filed by one Nanhe Lal (now represented by his Legal Heirs and Legal Representatives, who are appellants herein) against Jamuna Prasad and others, some of them are now represented by their legal heirs and legal representatives, seeking partition of above said plot and for delivery of possession. The case set forth by the plaintiff in the plaint was that the contesting parties were descendants of a common ancestor, that is, of one Ram Ugrah Lal. The relations between the parties have been shown in the Pedigree given at the foot of the plaint. 6. The case set forth by the plaintiff in the plaint was that the contesting parties were descendants of a common ancestor, that is, of one Ram Ugrah Lal. The relations between the parties have been shown in the Pedigree given at the foot of the plaint. 6. Ram Ugrah Lal had three sons, that is, Bhairo Dyal, Devi Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal. According to the plaintiff, these three brothers were members of the joint family as per Mitakshara Law and were living together. Bhairo Dayal, being the eldest brother/eldest son of Ram Ugrah Lal, was Karta and manager of the family. It was alleged in the plaint that the three brothers obtained a lease (Patta Ishtmurari) of the property No. 93/1, area 7 decimal, from its owners, that is, one Roop Kala Kunwari, said to be guardian of Mathura Singh, Raghunath Singh and Madan Gopal Singh. It was further alleged that the latter owners, Hemu Pandey and Raj Dayal also executed a registered lease deed (Ishtmurari Patta) on 23.11.1917 in favour of abovesaid three brothers, Bhairo Dayal, Devi Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal in respect of some portion of the same Plot, that is, Plot No. 93/1, siutate at Village Neuri, Taluka Jamua, Tehsil Balia. It was pleaded in the plaint that Hemu Pandey and Raj Dayal had executed another lease deed on 23.11.1917 in favour of abovesaid Bhairo Dyal, Devi Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal in respect of some other portion of the said plot. It was submitted that the name of three brothers was jointly recorded in respect of the said plot in Khasra 1372 Fasali. This revenue entry occurring in Khasra 1372 Fasali was challenged by Jamuna Lal and others before the Tehsildar, Ballia seeking expunction of the names of Bhairo Dayal, Devi Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal. The Sub Divisional Officer, Ballia vide an order dated 29th September, 1970 had rejected the application submitted by Jamuna Lal and others. An appeal was preferred before the Collector, Ballia by Jamuna Lal and others, which was allowed vide an order dated 27.12.1971. The Collector had ordered that if any party was aggrieved, it could approach the regular Court seeking adjudication of its rights. The order passed by the Collector, Ballia, dated 27.12.1971 has been considered by both the Courts below, that is, the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. The Collector had ordered that if any party was aggrieved, it could approach the regular Court seeking adjudication of its rights. The order passed by the Collector, Ballia, dated 27.12.1971 has been considered by both the Courts below, that is, the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. Being aggrieved of this order of the Collector, Nanhe Lal and others filed aforementioned Original Suit No. 76 of 1972 seeking partition. 7. In the meantime, the litigation regarding revenue entry continued, an Appeal was preferred by Ram Kripal and others before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which was dismissed on 11.12.1972. Ram Kripal and others preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed by means of the order dated 26.12.1979, by the Chairman Board of Revenue, U.P., at Lucknow. 8. The plaintiff-appellants had pleaded before the trial Court that all the three brothers, sons of Ram Ugrah Lal were living together and the property in dispute was an ancestral family property. The plaintiff-appellant, Nanhe Lal being the only and sole heir of second brother, that is, Devi Dayal, was entitled for one third share in the total property, that is, in Plot No. 93/1, situate at Neuri, Taluka, Jamua, Tehsil Ballia, District Ballia,having an area of 7 decimal. The said property contained constructions and joint Sahan. The family members of the brothers were not having good relations and as such the property was liable to be partitioned. 9. The Defendants, respondents herein, had filed a detailed written statement alongwith the documents to demonstrate that, in fact, no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the Suit. According to them, Bhairo Dyal, had already separated from his brothers 70 years ago (that is some time in the year 1902). The three brothers were living separately. There did not exist any joint family nor there was any joint family fund or nucleous. Bhairo Dayal, one of the three brothers, was not manager or Karta of the family as alleged in the plaint. Ram Ugrah Lal had died in the year 1902 and after his death his three sons were not in good terms and, therefore, all of them had separated. Bhairo Dayal, one of the three brothers, was not manager or Karta of the family as alleged in the plaint. Ram Ugrah Lal had died in the year 1902 and after his death his three sons were not in good terms and, therefore, all of them had separated. A chronology of events was given in the written statement and has been considered by the two Courts that the ancestral house of Ram Ugrah Lal situated in Village Shahpur, District Ballia submerged in the flood of river Ganga. The said ancestral house was completely destroyed due to flood. Ram Ugrah Lal had shifted from his native Village Shahpur to Kanspur, Pargana and District Ballia where he got residential house constructed with the help of his in-laws. This house also submerged due to flood in the River Ganga. This second house was completely destroyed due to flood in the River Ganga in the year 1916. It was pleaded by the Defendants that at the time of death of Ram Ugrah Lal, there was no residential house or Abadi with Ram Ugrah Lal and his family members, except Zamindari of his native Village Shahpur. 10. It was pleaded by the Defendants before the Courts below and considered by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court that Bhairo Dayal was working as a Law Clerk of Sri Baijnath Sahai, Advocate in Collectorate, Ballia. He was also working as a Law Agent of Tehsildar, Surajpur and as such he was having sufficient income to purchase and acquire the property in dispute. In the year 1333 Fasali, Bhairo Dayal became a tenureholder of the aforementioned disputed land. He was paying Lagan (Revenue) to the Zamindar. After his death, his heirs (Defendants before the Courts below and respondents herein) became owner of the plot in dispute. A house was constructed on the said plot by his own and independent earnings. He had given proper education to his children. In the year 1940, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 got another residence constructed on the portion of the land in dispute. The remaining land was being used as Sahan and for agricultural purposes. 11. It was categorically pleaded before the trial Court and this fact has been considered by both the Courts below that the father of Nanhe Lal, plaintiff-appellant, Devi Dayal had always remained in the state of pauperism. The remaining land was being used as Sahan and for agricultural purposes. 11. It was categorically pleaded before the trial Court and this fact has been considered by both the Courts below that the father of Nanhe Lal, plaintiff-appellant, Devi Dayal had always remained in the state of pauperism. He was not a man of status nor he was earning any thing to enable him to construct any residence. His financial condition was not such that he could acquire or make some property. It was also categorically submitted that after the after the residential house of Village Kanspur submerged in River Ganga’s flood and destroyed, the plaintiff, Nanhe Lal started living separately in a rented accommodation in Gudari Bazar. Thereafter, he shifted to Ballia and was living at Jagdishpur, District Ballia. From this place, he started practising as an Advocate. Thereafter, Nanhe Lal took a rented accommodation in Japlinganj where his family members alongwith his in-laws were living. Thus, the plaintiff-Nanhe Lal, had no concern with the sons and family members of Bhairo Dayal. He, after destruction of the second ancestral house in the Village Kanspur in the year 1916, started living separately and as such no question arises of him purchasing the property in dispute from Hemu Pandey and Raj Dayal. 12. Both the Courts below have taken note that Parmeshwar Dayal was serving in Railways. He was having no residence at the time of his retirement and, therefore, he had purchased the land adjacent to the property in dispute and got his own house constructed on the separate land owned by him. He had no concern with the disputed land, which was acquired by Bhairo Dyal. It was categorically denied that the property in Suit was not obtained by execution of any lease as alleged in the plaint from Hemu Pandey and Raj Dayal. According to Defendants, they were not empowered to execute any lease deed nor they were having possession over the property in dispute. The plaintiff, Nanhe Lal, had, in fact, misused his position as an Advocate, practising in Collectorate, Ballia. Taking advantage of his position of an Advcoate, he had manipulated and colluded with Defendant Nos. 13 to 15 and had influenced revenue authorities to get some entries recorded. It was categorically submitted by filing an additional written statement that the plaintiff had never remained in possession over the property in dispute. 13. Taking advantage of his position of an Advcoate, he had manipulated and colluded with Defendant Nos. 13 to 15 and had influenced revenue authorities to get some entries recorded. It was categorically submitted by filing an additional written statement that the plaintiff had never remained in possession over the property in dispute. 13. Counter claims were set up by Defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 14 to 21 making assertion that they were having 1/6th share in the property in question for which partition was sought accordingly by the counter claimants. 14. Similarly, Defendant Nos. 13 to 15, 31 and 32 by filing their written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff. A compromise was also filed by the plaintiff, claiming himself to be guardian of Umesh Charan Sinha, Suresh Charan Sinha, Yogesh Charan Sinha and Bama Charan Sinha. 15. Several documents were filed by the contesting parties in support of their respective claims. The trial Court, after exchange of the pleadings, had framed following issues covering the dispute : “1.Whether the Suit has been undervalued and Court-fees paid is insufficient? 2.Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 3.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 4.Whether the plaintiff has 1/3rd Share in the property in suit on the allegations made in the plaint? 5.Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppal and acquiescence? 6.Whether the Defendant Nos. 13, 14, 15, 31 and 32 have 1/3rd share in the property in question on the basis of averments made in the written statement, which is liable to be partitioned? 6.Relief, if any.” 16. I have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the materials on record. 17. In the present case, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding acquisition of Plot No. 93/1, situate at Neuri, Taluka, Jamua, Tehsil Ballia, District Ballia by Bhairo Dayan, the elest son of Ram Ugrah Lal and further by contesting Defendants. Both the Courts below have taken note of a larger number of documents, revenue entries and other materials to record a finding of fact that Smt. Roop Kala Kunwari had no right to execute the lease deed on 10.3.1902 in respect of the disputed property in favour of Hemu Pandey etc. She, being a guardian, did not obtain any permission from the District Judge/Competent Authority to do so. She, being a guardian, did not obtain any permission from the District Judge/Competent Authority to do so. Moreover, she was not held to be the only guardian of four minors, that is, Mathura Singh etc., the original tenureholderes. The plaintiff-defendants had failed to produce any document to prove or to show that the title of Hemu Pandey and Raj Dayal was transferred from the tenureholders of the property in question. The alleged lease deeds as placed by Sri Nanhe Lal etc., the Appellants before the Courts below were not held as valid documents by the Revenue authorities. No documentary evidence was filed by the Plaintiff-appellants to show that the name of Hemu Pandey and Raj Dayal, from whom the land in question alleged to have been taken by Nanhe Lal etc. were ever entered in the revenue record as tenurehlders. 18. The revenue entries of 1309 Fasali shows that initially the land in dispute was an agricultural land and no Abadi existed there on the spot. The extracts of 1362 Fasali and 1380 Fasali/Revenue entries were taken note of by the Courts below. In 1345 Fasali revenue entry, Sanmukh was shown as tenureholder and Bhairo Dayal’s name (father of contesting-respondent herein) was shown as Shikmi. This entry shows that Bhairo Dayal alone was in possession of the property in dispute. This was an agricultural land. After demise of Bhairo Dayal, names of his sons were recorded in the revenue records. In Khasra of 1376 Fasali entry, Plot No. 93/1, which is in dispute, was recorded as Sir Malikan and Abadi. There were specific entries of the names of Jamuna Prasad, Ganga Prasad and Jatan Lal, sons of Bhairo Dayal in the revenue records. Further, it is relevant to mention that the names of Nanhe Lal and Parmeshwar Dayal was wrongly entered in the Column, but later on these names were ordered to be expunged by the Collector, Ballia vide an order dated 27.12.1971. 19. The learned Additional District Judge has chronologically dealt with the events which tookplace before passing of the order by the Collector, Ballia on 27.12.1971. This order passed by the Collector, Ballia on 27.12.1971 had remained unchallenged throughout and is still in vogue. It shows that firstly Bhairo Dayal and after his death his sons and now their legal heirs and legal representatives are recorded as tenureholders and are in possession over the land in dispute. This order passed by the Collector, Ballia on 27.12.1971 had remained unchallenged throughout and is still in vogue. It shows that firstly Bhairo Dayal and after his death his sons and now their legal heirs and legal representatives are recorded as tenureholders and are in possession over the land in dispute. The names of Devi Dayal, father of Nanhe Lal and Parmeshwar Dayal, ceased to exist after 27.12.1971. It has already been indicated that the third Son of Rameshwar Dayal, namely, Parmeshwar Dayal was in service of Railways and he after his retirement has purchased separate land, which was close to the plot in dispute and built his residential house. He had no role to play in acquiring the property in dispute. 20. Both the Courts below have taken note of witnesses produced by the plaintiff-appellants and the versions of the defence witnesses. The Courts below have rather dealt with the matter in much detail. The findings, based on oral and documentary evidence, have been recorded that the sole name of Bhairo Dayal was entered as Shikmi in possession over the land in dispute. Even the Revenue Courts had refused to entertain version of the plaintiff-Nanhe Lal etc. that there existed a lease deed in their favour. To the contrary, entries in the revenue records always stood in the name of Bhairo Dayal. No declaration was sought by the plaintiff, Nanhe Lal etc. from the competent Revenue Courts. Taking into considerations all these facts, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly held that the entry recording the name of Bhairo Dayal appearing in the Revenue records cannot be challenged in the present case and as such the same cannot be branded as incorrect or vague entry. In view of these detailed findings as well as the materials available on record, this Court is also of the opinion that Bhairo Dayal and after his death, his legal heirs and legal representatives were the owners and valid title holders of the land in dispute. Bhairo Dayal and after his death, his sons’ names were recorded in the revenue entries. These long standing entries had remained unchallenged till date and as such cannot be ignored. The findings recorded by the Courts below derive further strength from the conclusions arrived at in the order passed by the Collector, Ballia on 27.12.1971. 21. Bhairo Dayal and after his death, his sons’ names were recorded in the revenue entries. These long standing entries had remained unchallenged till date and as such cannot be ignored. The findings recorded by the Courts below derive further strength from the conclusions arrived at in the order passed by the Collector, Ballia on 27.12.1971. 21. The learned Additional District Judge, Ballia, while placing reliance on the judgment in Deena Nath Verma v. Gokaran and others, 2002 (5) AWC 4109, has rightly observed that it was necessary for the plaintiff-appellants to seek a declaration regarding his rights from a competent Revenue Court before filing a Civil Suit. 22. As far as the argument that there existed a joint family and all the three brothers were living together and there was a presumption of jointness is concerned, it has no substance in view of the fact that the name of Bhairo Dayal was recorded in the revenue records in his individual capacity not as ‘Karta’ of a joint family. This fact finds further strength from the fact that third brother, Parameshwar Dayal, after his retirement, has purchased a separate land and has got constructed his own residential house adjacent to the land in dispute. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have held that Bhairo Dayal had acquired the property out of his own income while working as Law Clerk in the Collectore, Ballia and Law Agent of an Advocate whereas the father of Nanhe Lal and Devi Dayal, was a poor person having no means of livelihood. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the father of the plaintiff-appellants had any independent income. The third Brother, Parameshwar Dayal was working in the Railways and throughout his service, he remained out of Village and after his retirement he purchased a separate land and constructed his own separate residential house to settle at Ballia. It is also borne out of record that the old joint family’s house was destroyed and submerged in the floods of River Ganga in 1840. Thereafter, ancestors of Bhairo Dayal shifted to Kanshpur to settle there with their in-laws. Even this ancestral house was also destroyed due to flood water of the River Ganga in 1916. It was admitted to the parties that the ancestral properties of the contesting parties were destroyed during these floods. Thereafter, ancestors of Bhairo Dayal shifted to Kanshpur to settle there with their in-laws. Even this ancestral house was also destroyed due to flood water of the River Ganga in 1916. It was admitted to the parties that the ancestral properties of the contesting parties were destroyed during these floods. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any joint income of the family from agriculture etc. or there existed any joint family fund or nucleus. All the three brothers were earning separately. Bhairo Dayal was working as Law Clerk of one Baij Nath Sahai, Advocate. He was also working as Law Agent at Surajpur, while Parmeshwar Dayal was in the service of Railways. Devi Dayal, father of plaintiff-appellants, Nanhe Lal etc. was not engaged in any service or occupation. Thus, both the Courts below have found that there was no element available in this case of existence of a joint family fund or nucleus etc. All the three brothers were living separately and were earning their livelihood from their own means and endeavours. As per materials available on record, the residence on the land in dispute was got constructed by Bhairo Dayal out of his own earnings. No evidence or material was brought on record by the plaintiff-appellants that there was any joint family fund or nucleus, which was used for the purposes of construction of the residential house on the land in dispute. The First Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff-appellants had himself failed to establish their assertions by his own testimony and from the documents produced by them. Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact that Bhairo Dayal had separated himself from his brothers more than 42 years ago (the Suit was filed in the year 1971). The property in Suit, in fact, was acquired by Bhairo Dayal, after his separation from his two brothers, that is, Devi Dayal and Parameshwar Dayal, who were not in possession of the land in dispute whereas Bhairo Dayal alone was found in possession of the land in dispute having his name entered in the revenue and other records. 23. It is also noteworthy that the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that the Lagan (revenue) of the land in dispute was being paid by Bhairo Dayal alone. 23. It is also noteworthy that the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that the Lagan (revenue) of the land in dispute was being paid by Bhairo Dayal alone. The plaintiff-appellants had failed to demonstrate before the Court that the Nazrana (fee for allotment) of the land in dispute was paid from the joint family fund or nucleus not by Bhairo Dayal in whose name the land in dispute was recorded. It was disbelieved from the findings of fact recorded and conclusions drawn by the both the cours below that Bhairo Dayal was not earning substantial amount as a Law Clerk as well as Law Agent to purchase the agricultural land and thereafter raising construction over the land, rather it has been held that none of the brothers had helped him in any way financially or otherwise to acquire the land in dispute. 24. The learned III Additional District Judge, Ballia has written a well reasoned and well considered judgment and order running in 34 pages dealing all the points. The learned Additional District Judge has dealt with and appreciated each and every statement recorded by the witnesses, taken note of revenue entries, oral and documentary evidence and carefully gone through the records while recording findings of facts and arriving at conclusions. The First Appellate Court has also dealt with various documents, put forth by the parties in the Trial Court as well as in the First Appellate Court, like Tax Assessment papers, fees receipts, revenue entries, extracts of various Khasras relating to relevant years and the Khatauni revenue entries of various years. After examining all the materials, placed before the First Appellate, it has arrived at a conclusion that initial entries stood in the revenue records in the name of Bhairo Dayal as ‘Shikmi Kashtkar’ and he was having exclusive possession over the land in dispute. His name remained intact in the revenue records for a long period of time without there being any challenge. Thereafter, names of his legal heirs and legal representatives were also got mutated in his place after his death. The possession of Bhairo Dayal and his legal heirs and legal representatives was never disturbed. The plaintiff-appellants and other contesting parties had failed to prove their title and possession in respect of the land in dispute as they could not rebut the documentary evidence available on record. The possession of Bhairo Dayal and his legal heirs and legal representatives was never disturbed. The plaintiff-appellants and other contesting parties had failed to prove their title and possession in respect of the land in dispute as they could not rebut the documentary evidence available on record. The plaintiff-appellants and others have failed to establish that they had any share in the land in dispute. Thus, it can be safely held that the findings recorded in this regard by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as well as on facts and laws. These concurrent findings of facts appear to be unassailable. The plaintiff-appellants have failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and not based on evidence. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and carefully scrutinsied the materials placed before them. 25. This Court has also scrutinised these Second Appeals in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions as Bachhaj Nahar P. v. Nilima Mandal and another, AIR 2009 SC 1103 ; Bellachi (Dead) by L.R. v. Pakeeran, AIR 2009 SC 3293 and Bhuri Bai and others v. Ramnarayan and others, 2009 (4) SCC 56 ; Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and another, AIR 2008 SC 1749 ; Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, AIR 1999 SC 2213 and Kashibai W/O Lachiram and another v. Parwatibai W/o Lachiram and others, (1995) 6 SCC 213 , finds that no substantial question of law is made out warranting interference of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the present case where both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact. 26. In view of the discussions made above, both the Second Appeals fail and are dismissed. All the necessary consequences shall follow. No order as to costs. —————