Order This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 10 of 2004 dismissing the appellants' appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of learned trial court. 2. The plaintiff had filed the suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa praying for a decree declaring the plaintiff's right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit land of Plot No. 209 under Khata No. 541 area 51 decimals of Village-Anandpur, P.S.-Manoharpur. District-West Singhbhum. 3. The plaintiff's case, in brief. was that the said land was jointly recorded in the name of Sulochana Mundarin wife of Mahendra Napit and Surendra Napit son of Kusto Napit. There was a partition between the recorded tenants and subject matter of the suit being 51 decimals of the land in the said plot was allotted to Sulochana Mundarin. The plaintiff had purchased the said land from Sulochana Mundarin by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22.3.1985 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. Plaintiff's name was, thereafter, mutated in the office of Anchal Adhikari and he had been paying rent to the State. He has been in continuous peaceful possession of the said land. However, the defendants, who are the sons of Surendra Napit, started obstructing possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The dispute led to the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was later on converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In the said proceeding the plaintiff's possession was declared by order dated 22.2.1993 and the rule was made absolute against the defendants, restrained them from disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The defendants did not challenge the said order. But after some time they again started creating disturbance in peaceful possession of the plaintiff, which gave rise to the cause of action for the aforesaid suit. 4. The defendants contested the suit. In their written statement, they, inter alia, pleaded the plaintiff's claim being barred by law of limitation and adverse possession. According to them Plot No. 209 is a big plot having an area of 1.5 acres and the same is in continuous peaceful possession of the defendants, openly and adversely to all concerned. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and there was no occasion for disturbing his possession. Surendra Napit and Mahendra Napit were own brothers. Sulochana Mundarin was the widow of Mahendra Napit. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and there was no occasion for disturbing his possession. Surendra Napit and Mahendra Napit were own brothers. Sulochana Mundarin was the widow of Mahendra Napit. Sulochana was not the legally married wife of Mahendra Napit. The said land was a joint family property of two brothers and there was no partition between them by metes and bounds. Sulochana had no right to transfer the said property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not acquire any right title by virtue of the alleged sale deed. 5. Learned trial court, after completion of trial, thoroughly appraised the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was able to establish his claim over the suit property and that he has got valid right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit land. The plaintiff's suit was decreed. 6. The defendants, thereafter, filed title appeal in the Court of District Judge, Chaibasa being T.A. No. 10 of 2004. 7. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by learned Additional District Judge, FTC-I, Chaibasa. Learned lower appellate court, having heard the parties, independently discussed the evidence and materials on record and after thorough scrutiny thereof, concurred with the finding of learned trial court holding that the plaintiff has got right, title over the property by virtue of his acquisition. Learned lower court held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that Sulochana Mundarin was recorded tenant of Plot No. 209 alongwith Surendra Napit. Mahendra Napit and Surendra Napit were own brothers and Sulochana was wife of Mahendra Napit. Said Sulochana executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and that learned trial court has rightly held and declared the plaintiff's right, title over the suit land. Learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. 8. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that learned courts below failed to take into consideration that though Sulochana Mundarin was recorded as tenant in the Survey Record of Rights, she was widow of Mahendra Napit and since the land was jointly recorded with Surendra Napit, she had no right to transfer specific portion of land in favour of the plaintiff. Learned courts below have committed serious error in not properly appreciating the legal effect of joint entries in the Record of Rights. 9. I have heard learned counsel and perused the judgments of learned courts below. I find that the courts below have considered the aforesaid objection and the grounds of the appellants and have rejected the same by recording sound and legal reasons. Both the courts have concurrently held that there was partition between the said recorded tenants and there was no illegality in transferring land of her share by Sulochana Mundarin in favour of the plaintiff. Learned courts have also concurrently found the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suil land. No ground has been made out giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided in the second appeal. 10. This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.