JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2009 passed by the District Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Jaisalmer has been dismissed and dismissal of the suit for partition filed by the appellant has been upheld. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the appellant- Aaloo Singh claiming himself to be the adopted son of Ram Lal filed a suit for partition against sons of Babu Lal, inter-alia with the averments that the plaintiff and defendants were great grand sons of Lachhi Ram. After death of Ram Lal, Smt. Rambha Devi W/o Shri Ram Lal adopted the plaintiff, who is her grand son (daughter's son) by a adoption deed dated 3.10.1986, which was registered with Sub-Registrar, Jaisalmer on 9.10.1986; the said Smt. Rambha Devi expired on 1.2.1987 and therefore, he was the sole heir of said Ram Lal and Smt. Rambha Devi. It was claimed that joint ancestral property i.e. a house situated at Kotdipada, Jaisalmer was recorded in the House-tax Registrar of Municipality in the name of deceased Ram Lal, however, Ram Lal and Smt. Rambha Devi had half share in the said house and half share belong to the defendants. Smt. Rambha Devi had possession of a kotha in the said house and after adoption, the plaintiff had possession of the said portion of the suit property along with the mother as owner. 3. A suit was filed by the defendants seeking cancellation of the adoption deed, which was decided by the Civil Court on 21.12.1994 in plaintiff's favour. It was claimed that the defendants were seeking to prevent the appellant from using the said house and despite repeated requests have refused to partition the said house and ultimately, it was prayed that the suit property may partitioned by metes and bounds. 4. A written statement was filed by the defendants and the averments made in the plaint were denied. It was claimed that the grand fathers of the parties i.e. Binja Ram and Idan had separated even during life time of their favour i.e. Lachhi Ram and in the suit property Binja Ram had no share and the plaintiff had no share in the suit property. It was claimed that the grand fathers of the parties i.e. Binja Ram and Idan had separated even during life time of their favour i.e. Lachhi Ram and in the suit property Binja Ram had no share and the plaintiff had no share in the suit property. Ram Lal, so-called adopted father - plaintiff has died 50 years back and Smt. Rambha Devi never visited Jaisalmer as she was staying at Village Jajiya. 5. The trial court framed seven issues and on behalf of the parties several witnesses were examined. 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the adoption deed dated 9.10.1986, judgment dated 21.12.1994 were exhibited and Exhibit-A/1 a copy of the House-tax list was used for confronting DW-1. 7. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to indicate as to who was the original owner of the suit property, the female co-sharers have not been impleaded in the suit and the suit was filed merely on an entry Exhibit-A/1 and therefore, the appellant has failed to prove that the property was ancestral/joint. The legal representatives of Ram Lal and daughters etc. of Mst. Nako (natural mother of plaintiff) have not been impleaded as party, which is fatal to the suit. As the plaintiff was not in possession and valuation of the property was beyond the pecuniary limits of the trial court, the suit was not maintainable and consequently, dismissed the suit for partition. 8. The learned first appellate court after hearing the parties reiterated the findings arrived at by the trial court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below is ex-facie against the record of the case, once the adoption of the plaintiff as son of Ram Lal is proved, he becomes entitled to a share in the suit property, which fact has been proved by placing the registered adoption deed and decree wherein the said adoption was upheld by the competent civil court and therefore, the courts below were not justified in dismissing the claim/suit of the appellant for partition of the suit property. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the findings recorded by both the courts below are findings of fact and the same does not call for any interference. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the findings recorded by both the courts below are findings of fact and the same does not call for any interference. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishwanath Sitaram Agarwal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agarwal : AIR 2012 SC 2586 . 11. I have considered the rival submissions. 12. From a perusal of the judgments passed by both the courts below and the record of the trial court, it is apparent that the entire suit of the plaintiff is based on a House-tax list for the year 1976-77, wherein the name of Ram Lal Binja Ram, has been indicated as owner of the house and in the column relating to the House, No.427 is indicated. It is interesting to notice that the said document was not produced/proved by the appellant during his evidence and the same was produced as Exhibit-A/1, during the cross-examination of defendants' witnesses probably with a view to avoid his own cross-examination on the said document. The said document clearly indicates that " vizekf.kr gksus ds dkj.k oS/kkfud ekU;rk ugha ", which means that being uncertified, the same had no statutory recognition. The said document by its very nature cannot be termed as a title document so as to arm the appellant to claim partition of the suit property. Even if, the document-in-question is taken into consideration, the same indicates Ram Lal Binja Ram as the owner of the house, which in that case would mean that the entire house was owned by Ram Lal, plaintiff's father and therefore, if the said document can form the basis for filing the suit, the appellant, in normal circumstances, should have filed a suit seeking possession of the entire house and not only half of the suit property. 13. In that view of the matter, the document Ex.-A/1, which is sheet encore of the appellant's case does not confer any title and otherwise then the said document Ex.-A/1, the appellant has failed to place on record any material to show that the property was owned by Lachhi Ram, his great grand father and/or Binja Ram his grand father, so as to claim partition of the suit property. The findings recorded by the courts below are otherwise also findings of fact and does not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction in the second appeal as no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 14. Consequently, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******