JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J. Heard Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents on the admission of appeal. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by defendants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2010, passed by Special Judge (Anti-Corruption)/Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2001, whereby suit for partition filed by plaintiff, has been decreed. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as they were described in trial court, i.e. plaintiff/defendant, unless specified otherwise. 4. The following pedigree would be helpful to appreciate the issue involved in the present appeal. Kamta Ram Naresh (died in between 1972-75) Mahadeo(died in 1980) Ram Kewal (Defendant no. 3) Ram Harakh (plaintiff) 5. Ram Harakh filed a suit for partition alleging that he along with defendant no. 2 constituted a joint Hindu family. It was alleged that the disputed house belonged to his great-grandfather Kamta. After the death of Kamta, his legal heirs became the co-owners of the property in dispute. It was alleged that after death of sons of Kamta, i.e. Ram Naresh and Mahavir, plaintiff along with his father (defendant no. 3) became co-owners of property in dispute. As defendant no. 3 used to repose faith and confidence over defendant nos. 1 & 2, the former sold a part of property in dispute in favour of defendant no. 2 in 1992 and delivered possession thereof. It was alleged that defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 threatened to disturb peaceful possession of plaintiff, even though plaintiff had a right by birth to ½ share of property in dispute, hence the suit. The defendant no. 3 supported the allegations made in plaint, but denied the claim of partition. It was stated that he (defendant no. 3) had executed sale deed dated 12.10.1992 in favour of defendant no. 2/Smt. Marachhi Devi in respect of 4 decimals for Rs.32,500/-. It was further stated that plaintiff is already in possession of ½ share of the house in dispute (eastern side) and similarly defendant no. 3 was in possession on western side. The defendant no. 1, is husband of defendant no. 4 also filed his written statement and denied that plaintiff has ½ share. It was stated that after death of Kamta, property devolved upon Ram Naresh and Mahadev as co-owners. 3 was in possession on western side. The defendant no. 1, is husband of defendant no. 4 also filed his written statement and denied that plaintiff has ½ share. It was stated that after death of Kamta, property devolved upon Ram Naresh and Mahadev as co-owners. After the death of Mahadev, Ram Naresh became sole owner of disputed house and after his death, defendant no. 3 became sole owner thereof. It was further stated that Ram Naresh died prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that it was only after 16-17 years that plaintiff was born. Since then defendant no. 4 constructed a pakka house and is residing along with her family members. Thus, according to him, plaintiff had no right over the property by birth. The plaintiff denied the right/entitlement of defendant no. 4 on the basis of oral/documentary transaction. 6. It was further stated that defendant no. 3 transferred the disputed house in favour of defendant no. 4 (wife of defendant no. 1) by an oral transaction and in acknowledgment thereof, a deed was executed on 24.11.1975. 7. The trial court framed nine issues, out of which issue nos. 1, 2, 3 & 9 are relevant and are quoted hereunder: No.1- Whether the disputed property was the ancestral property? No.2- Whether the plaintiff has ½ share in the ancestral property? No.3- Whether the plaintiff has a right to sue? No.9- What is the effect of transactions made in favour of Smt. Kailashi Devi? 8. The trial court after consideration of evidence held that Kamta had two sons, namely, Ram Naresh and Mahadev. Ram Naresh died between 1972-75. Mahadev died in 1980. Thus, at the time of filing of the suit, Plaintiff-Ram Harakh and his father Ram Kewal (defendant no. 3) were alive. The pedigree as disclosed by plaintiff, was not disputed by defendant nos. 1 to 4. Thus, after the death of Mahadev in 1980, Ram Kewal did not become the sole owner of property in dispute, as his son Ram Harakh was already been born on 2.4.1956, as was evident from the entry in Parivar register (28-C). The Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17.6.1956. Hence, Ram Kewal has no right to alienate the entire property in favour of defendant no. 4/Smt. Kailashi Devi and to that extent, said deed was void. The Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17.6.1956. Hence, Ram Kewal has no right to alienate the entire property in favour of defendant no. 4/Smt. Kailashi Devi and to that extent, said deed was void. The alleged execution of instrument dated 24.11.1975 was also not proved as Ram Kewal, defendant no. 3 denied his signatures on the said document. DW-4 Ramanuj could not prove due execution of said document, as there were material contradictions in his statement too. Thus, on the aforesaid evidence, trial court took the view that the property in dispute was ancestral in the hands of plaintiff; due execution of alleged deed from defendant no. 3 to defendant no. 4 was also not established and that plaintiff does have ½ share in the property. The appellate court while upholding the judgment of trial court further held that the contention of appellants that if alleged instrument (paper no. 30-Ka) was held to be void, then Smt. Kailashi Devi (defendant no. 4) being in adverse possession, had perfected her title, but said contention was also liable to be rejected as a finding has been recorded that the said document was fraudulently prepared which is a finding of fact based on evidence to which no perversity could be attributed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for appellant, the Court is of the view that findings recorded by courts below, are based on proper appraisal of relevant and admissible evidence to which no perversity could be attributed. 10. No substantial questions of law arises. 11. The appeal is dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11 C.P.C. with costs.