Order Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The instant second appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.6.2008 and Decree dated 26.6.2008. passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Koderma in T.A. No. 17 of 2005 affirming the judgment and Decree dated 5.9.2005 (decree sealed and signed on 5.10.2005) passed by the Sub-Judge-3, Koderma in Partition Suit No. 11 of 1993. 3. A suit was preferred for partition against defendant nos. 1 to 11 and for declaration of 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the suit lands and also for a declaration that alleged Hukumnama and sale deeds are collusive, without any consideration and it was never acted upon and therefore not binding upon the• plaintiffs. 4. The case of the plaintiffs, in short is that the suit land was raiyati lands of Gopal Gape, Govind Gape, Sew a Gope as holding one share jointly and Madho Gape holding one share and Doman Gope and Bhikho Gape holding one share jointly and accordingly their names stood recorded in the Revenue record. The plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 to 11 are the heirs of the recorded tenants. It was further asserted that son of Doman Gope is plaintiff no. 1. and the heirs of Bhikho Gope are plaintiff nos. 2 to 9 and as such they have 1/3rd share in the suit lands. It was further asserted that they are in cultivatory possession of the lands in question •without partition by metes and bounds. 5. As many as 11 issues were framed by the Trial Court and after consideration of oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by both the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Against which, the appeal was preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs and the same was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 6. I have gone through the judgments of two Courts below and I find that after taking into consideration evidence led by both the parties they have arrived at a conclusion that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the plaint cannot be allowed. The appellants have raised a number of substantial questions of law in this second appeal but all the questions raised before me related to non-scrutinizing of evidence and reasonings given by the trial Court is not in accordance with law. The appellants have raised a number of substantial questions of law in this second appeal but all the questions raised before me related to non-scrutinizing of evidence and reasonings given by the trial Court is not in accordance with law. The instant second appeal is preferred against the judgments of two courts below which are concurrent findings of fact against the appellants and the questions raised in the instant second appeal is only for scrutinizing or re-appraisal of evidence. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant second appeal. 7. The instant second appeal lacks merit, accordingly dismissed. .