JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. There is concurrent finding by the lower Court that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish that all the defendants were members of joint Hindu family. So far as agricultural land is concerned, it is admitted by PW-1 Amar Chandra/plaintiff no.3 that his name does find place in the revenue records and the land in question is recorded in the name of defendant no. 1 Yasoda Nandan. It is further recorded by the Court below that no proceedings whatsoever has been initiated by the plaintiffs before the revenue Court for the agricultural land namely plot no. 31. 3. For two houses (one residential house and a cattle house) it was recorded that plaintiff No. 3 had admitted that these were constructed after 1980 when his father was a teacher. The finding is that the disputed houses are self acquired property of defendant No.1. This finding on issue no.1 regarding claim of the plaintiffs has been affirmed by the first Appellate Court. 4. The first Appellate Court had considered that the point of adjudication in the matter as issue no. 1 and after recording finding on issue no. 1 regarding claim of the plaintiffs it was concluded that the disputed property cannot be said to be ancestral property. It was self acquired property of defendant no. 1 Yasoda Nandan who has right to its use and enjoyment. These findings of facts are assailed by learned counsel of the appellants on the ground that the first Appellate Court has committed illegality in framing points of adjudication under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. 5. From perusal of the order of the first Appellate Court, it is apparent that while considering the issue framed by the Trial Court, it was recorded by the Appellate Court that issue no. 1 is the issue for adjudication. This ground of challenge cannot be sustained. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. 6. The second appeal is dismissed. 7. However, lastly learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has filed suit for declaration before the Revenue Court. The finding in a Civil suit may not come in his way. No observation can be made by the second appellate Court on this issue. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. 6. The second appeal is dismissed. 7. However, lastly learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has filed suit for declaration before the Revenue Court. The finding in a Civil suit may not come in his way. No observation can be made by the second appellate Court on this issue. The appellants may raise this point before the Revenue Court which may be considered in accordance with law.