JUDGMENT 1. - The instant second appeal has been filed against the judgment & decree dated 26/07/20 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur dismissing Civil Regular Appeal No.182/2007 preferred by original defendant-Janki Prasad Singhal and affirming the judgment & decree dated 19/07/2003 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dholpur by which, the suit for partition has been decreed. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that originally, suit has been filed by Rambabu Singhal. During pendency of the suit, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Original defendant was Janki Prasad Singhal. Both were brothers. It has been averred in the plaint that vide two separate sale-deeds dated 21/03/1961, the suit property has been purchased by Rambabu Singhal and Janki Prasad Singhal jointly from Gangaram and Mishrilal. It has been further pleaded that Gangaram and Mishrilal have mortgaged the suit property to Choteylal and Jagannath for the amount of Rs. 6 0/-. Thereafter, property has been redeemed by Rambabu Singhal and Janki Prasad Singhal and they became the joint owner of the property. Rambabu Singhal asked for partition, which was avoided by Janki Prasad Singhal. A notice was also sent and, thereafter, the suit for partition was filed. The contention of the defendant-appellant was that Rambabu Singhal has no share in the suit property. Janki Prasad Singhal is absolute owner of the property as on 05/09/1973, the firm Janki Prasad Rambabu has paid the mortgaged amount of Rs. 6 0/- and endorsement of the same has also been made on the back of the mortgage-deed hence, the firm has become owner of the property. Apart from it, one other firm was also in the name of Mohanlal & Sons between Rambabu Singhal and Janki Prasad Singhal, which was dissolved on 06/04/1976 for which, Rambabu Singhal has acknowledged the liability for payment of Rs. 30,000/-, which was never paid and finally, in lieu of that amount, the property has been given to Janki Prasad Singhal and he became the absolute owner. After considering the rival contentions, the suit has been decreed and the appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this second appeal. 3. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that both the courts below have misread the evidence, oral as well as documentary. After considering the rival contentions, the suit has been decreed and the appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this second appeal. 3. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that both the courts below have misread the evidence, oral as well as documentary. On the endorsement regarding the redemption of the property, made on 05/09/1973, it is clear that mortgaged amount has been given by the firm. He who has redeemed the mortgage hence, firm is owner of the property and DW2 Banwarilal Sharma has also endorsed the same fact and when the property has been brought into partnership, it is the property of the partnership-firm and Rambabu Singhal has no right, title and interest in the property. Furthermore, it has been submitted that Janki Prasad Singhal has been examined himself, whereas due to death of Rambabu Singhal, his son Sunil has been examined and he was not having any personal knowledge about the true state of affairs hence, evidence of Janki Prasad Singhal should have been relied upon by the courts below and the findings of the courts below are perverse and courts below have misinterpreted the endorsement on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 as regards to redemption of mortgage. Hence, the appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, the contention of the counsel for the respondent is that it is admitted fact between the parties that suit property has been purchased in personal capacity by the original plaintiff and the original defendant. There is no iota of evidence that the property has been transferred in the name of firm or it has been included in the capital of the firm. Highest case of the appellant is that money for redemption of the property has been paid out of the firm account but other evidence shows that it has been debited in the accounts of the partners. Otherwise also, by only getting redemption, property could not be vested in the firm. Looking to the concurrent findings, which are based on right appreciation of the evidence, this second appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the same be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-judgment & decree as well as original records of the case. 6. Looking to the concurrent findings, which are based on right appreciation of the evidence, this second appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the same be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-judgment & decree as well as original records of the case. 6. Broadly, the facts are admitted that the property was purchased by the original plaintiff and defendant jointly from Gangaram and Mishrilal and at the time of purchase, it was mortgaged to Choteylal and Jagannath and it has been redeemed on 05/09/1973. The only contention of the appellant is that the firm Jankiprasad Rambabu has get redeemed the property, whereas contention of the respondent is that it has been get redeemed by Jankiprasad Singhal and Rambabu Singhal in their personal capacity and both the courts below have held that property has not been redeemed by the firm but it was get redeemed by the original plaintiff and the defendant. It is true that on endorsement dated 05/09/1973, the word "firm" has been used but at the same time, it has also been stated that it has been redeemed by Jankiprasad Singhal and Rambabu Singhal and both were present. The court below has also considered the statement of DW2 Banwari Lal Sharma, who was the mortgagor and from whom, property has been get redeemed. Apart from the endorsement on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the court below has also taken care of the fact that vide Ex.1 and Ex.2, property has been purchased by the original plaintiff and defendant through registered sale-deeds in their personal capacity and at that time, firm Jankiprasad Rambabu was not in existence. Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 entries in the firm accounts as regards to mortgage amount have also been considered in which the amount of mortgage has been debited in the accounts of the partners Janki Prasad and Rambabu. There is no evidence that the property has ever been brought into partnership or it became the property of the firm or it has been shown at the capital of the firm; the highest case of the appellant could be that money has been paid out of the firm accounts. Be that as it may, only by giving the money, the property could not be vested in the firm. Apart from it, DW1-Janki Prasad in his examination-in-chief has categorically stated that "we" get the property redeemed from Banwarilal Sharma on 05/09/1973. Be that as it may, only by giving the money, the property could not be vested in the firm. Apart from it, DW1-Janki Prasad in his examination-in-chief has categorically stated that "we" get the property redeemed from Banwarilal Sharma on 05/09/1973. It means that property has been get redeemed by the original defendant and the plaintiff and the word "firm" has only been used to establish the identity of the persons and in account books of the firm, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7, half portion of the mortgage amount has also been debited in the account of partners, which also shows that it was the personal act of the parties and the firm was not having any relation with the property and counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that by only paying money through firm account, will not create any right over the property. 7. The court below has also considered the evidence of DW2-Banwari Lal Sharma from whom the property has been get redeemed. Hence, looking to the concurrent findings of the courts below, which are also findings of facts, nothing could be shown that the courts below have misinterpreted the endorsement in regard to redemption of mortgage made on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Findings cannot be said to be perverse. 8. The other contention of the appellant is that as Rs. 30,000/- was due against the original plaintiff and in lieu of that amount, property has been vested absolutely in the defendant but no such statement has been recorded in Ex.A3, which is dissolution-deed of firm Mohanlal & Sons and when the document is silent on this point, court below has rightly held that property has not been vested absolutely in favour of the defendant. Contention of the respondent is that all these findings are of fact and could not be interfered in the second appeal and reliance has been placed on the judgments of Supreme Court in S.C. Jindal v. UHBVNL through Executive Engineer and another : (2011) 15 SCC 117 and Ganeshi (dead) through LRs. and others v. Ashok and another : (2011) 15 SCC 417 , wherein it has been held that when the court below has not ignored any evidence or misconstrued any document and finding of facts, which are based on relevant evidence, interference in second appeal is not justified, which is also the case here. and others v. Ashok and another : (2011) 15 SCC 417 , wherein it has been held that when the court below has not ignored any evidence or misconstrued any document and finding of facts, which are based on relevant evidence, interference in second appeal is not justified, which is also the case here. The court below has not ignored any evidence and has not misconstrued any document. Endorsement on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 has been considered rightly in the light of other relevant circumstances and no perversity could be shown.Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The records be sent back to the courts below forthwith.Appeal Dismissed. *******