ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. This is plaintiff’s second appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 24.1.2004 in Civil Appeal No.16 A/2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Sohagpur affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.5.2000 passed in Civil Suit No.11 A/1996 by Civil Judge Class I, Piparia. 3. Plaintiff having failed to establish that suit property marked as ABCD in the plaint map was the joint family property led the trial Court non suit the plaintiff in a suit for partition, declaration of title and for permanent injunction on a finding that the suit property was purchased by defendant vide registered saledeed on 25.8.1940. 4. The trial Court found - ^^17- izfroknh us vius okn mÙkj esa crk;k gS fd oknxzLr edku mlus Lo;a ds iSlksa ls [kjhnk gS vkSj mDr IykV lu~ 1940 esa [kjhndj mldk fuekZ.k fd;k gSA vkSj dCtk izkIr fd;k gS mDr okn fo”k; ds laca/k esa dFku gsrq izfroknh Lo;a mifLFkr ugha gqvk gS u gh mlus dksbZ izek.k is’k fd;kA izdj.k esa izLrqr nLrkostksa ls ;g Li”V gS fd oknxzLr edku izfroknh ds uke gS rFkk ;g Hkh Li”V gS fd og IykV [kjhnrs le; fefyVªh dh ukSdjh esa Fkk tcfd okn fo”k; Øa-1 esa fujkdj.k esa oknh ;g fl) ugha dj ldk fd mDr edku iSf=d laifÙk dk Fkk] ,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd oknh dh LohdkjksfDr gS fd okn xzLr IykV lu~ 1940 esa izfroknh ds uke ls [kjhnk x;k Fkk rFkk jktLo fjdkMks± esa izfroknh dk mYysf[kr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ekuk tk ldrk gS fd izfroknh ml edku dk ,d ek= Lokeh gS rFkk mlus mDr IykV [kjhndj lu~ 1940 esa dCtk izkIr fd;k FkkA** 5. The findings have been affirmed by the first appellate Court - rsjg oknxzLr edku izfroknh ds uke ij jktLo vfHkys[k esa gS ;g fufoZokn gSA o”kZ 1940 esa Tkehu [kjhnus ds ckn o”kZ 1992 rd fujarj izfroknh ds uke oknxzLr edku jktLo vfHkys[k esa ntZ jgk gS ftlds laca/k eas dHkh dksbZ vkifÙk ugha dh x;hA oknh ds firk dh e`R;q o”kZ 1989 esa gqbZ gS ;fn oknh ds firk ,oa izfroknh ds la;qDr ifjokj dk oknxzLr edku FkkA mDr n’kk esa oknh ds firk us vius thou dky esa mDr laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dk cVokjk vFkok jktLo vfHkys[k esa uke p<+kus dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh D;ksa ugha dhA bl rF; ls mi/kkj.kk oknh ds fo#) gh gksrh gSA tgka rd izn’kZ ih&1 ds vkosnu dk iz’u gS mDr vkosnu ls oknh dks dksbZ gd okn edku ij mRiUUk ugha gksrk gSA loZizFke rks mDr nLrkost dks fof/kor izekf.kr fd;k tkuk pkfg, tks fd izLrqr ekeys esa ugh fd;k x;k gSA izn’kZ ih&1 dk vkosnu fdlds }kjk fy[kk x;k uk rks fy[kus okys ds }kjk izekf.kr fd;k x;k gS vkSj izn’kZ ih&1 ds v ls v Hkkx ij tks gLrk{kj gS og gLrk{kj izfroknh dk gLrk{kj gS] ,slk Hkh oknh ds }kjk izekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj mDr nLrkost ls oknh@vihykFkhZ ds gd esa fdlh izdkj dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrh gSA 6. There being a concurrent finding of fact as to the title and ownership of the property found to be in favour of defendant, no substantial question of law arises in absence of cogent material evidence to belie the concurrent finding of fact. 7. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs. Narendra Sharma for appellant.