JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2. Original suit no. 315/2008 was filed by original plaintiff Ramadhin with averment that disputed house no. 33/35 was in the ownership of Late Ram Ashrey who was cousin brother of plaintiff. It was further pleaded that after death of Ram Ashrey, the whole of the dispute house came in ownership and possession of plaintiff Ramadhin but cause of action arose for the suit when defendants had tried to interfere in the plaintiff's possession of disputed property without any right or title. 3. During pendency of the said Smt. Kaushalya, wife of Raja Ram, was impleaded as plaintiff no.-2 in the suit. This Kaushalya Devi was widow of grandson of uncle of plaintiff. But at the time of impleadment of name of Kaushalya Devi, it was never pleaded in plaint by way of amendment or otherwise that plaintiff no.-2 Kaushalya Devi had any right title or interest in this disputed property or she had any cause of action for the suit against defendants. During trial plaintiff no.-1 Ramadhin died and suit was carried out by only remaining plaintiff no.-2 Kaushalya Devi. 4. After affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties, the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Mahoba had dismissed the original suit no. 315/2008 by its judgment dated 23.09.2015. In this judgment, trial court had held that plaintiff had failed to prove plaint case. Trial court had also held that after death of the original plaintiff Ramadhin, two living sons and one living wife were not substituted in his place. Without any explanation the Smt. Kaushalya Devi, surviving plaintiff, cannot have right in disputed property only on the ground that her son-in-law was taking care of disputed property on behalf of plaintiff Ramadhin. With these findings, trial court had dismissed the suit. 5. Against the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal no. 43/2015 (Smt. Kaushalya Devi vs. Maheshwaridin & others) was preferred by sole surviving plaintiff Kaushalya Devi. This was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 25.03.2016 of Court of District Judge, Mahoba. With these findings, trial court had dismissed the suit. 5. Against the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal no. 43/2015 (Smt. Kaushalya Devi vs. Maheshwaridin & others) was preferred by sole surviving plaintiff Kaushalya Devi. This was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 25.03.2016 of Court of District Judge, Mahoba. In this judgment, first appellate court had also appreciated the evidences and held that according to plaint the Ramadhin was owner of the disputed property but after his death his legal heirs, namely, wife and sons were not substituted, and as per law the appellant Kaushalya Devi cannot be his legal heir or legal representative, so as to have any right to sue or to continue the proceedings of the suit. The first appellate court had confirmed the finding of trial court on these grounds. Then Second Appeal was preferred by surviving plaintiff Smt. Kaushalya Devi. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that present appellant is owner of the half share of disputed property. He submitted that although Smt. Kaushalya Devi is not legal heir or legal representative of deceased plaintiff Ramadhin, but she has right to suit and to continue legal proceedings for disputed property because of her share in it and her rights had not abated. 7. The argument of appellant is found totally unacceptable because these are against plaint case. In plaint, only original plaintiff Ramadhin was pleaded as sole owner in possession of disputed property. It is admitted fact that present appellant Kaushalya Devi is not legal heir or legal representative of Ramadhin, therefore she cannot have right to sue in his place. In absence of any pleading she cannot be accepted as co-owner of any portion of disputed property. In absence of any such pleading, in fact no cause of action arose to appellant Kaushalya Devi for the suit; at least no such cause of actionis written in plaint. In absence of any such averment, no argument can be said to be unacceptable on the point of cause of action, so she cannot have right to suit or continue the proceedings for the property of plaintiff Ramadhin. 8. Ramadhin had claimed ownership and possession of whole of the disputed property. He died during proceeding of the suit and was survived by living wife and two living sons, but they were not substituted without any explanation. 8. Ramadhin had claimed ownership and possession of whole of the disputed property. He died during proceeding of the suit and was survived by living wife and two living sons, but they were not substituted without any explanation. Since Kaushalya Devi is not legal heir or representative of Ramadhin, therefore after the death of Ramdhin and non-substitution of his legal heirs, whole of the suit for the relief claimed in favour of Ramdhin had abated. Therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed as abated at the stage of its trial, but in presence of Smt. Kaushalya Devi as plaintiff, its proceedings were carried out and concluded on merits by trial court and thereafter by the first appellate court in first appeal. Both the lower courts have given finding of fact that plaintiff had failed to prove its case. 9. The findings of lower courts are apparently correct and acceptable. There appears no infirmity or perversity in it that may require interference by Court during second appeal by re-appreciation of evidence. The dispute in this matter was as to whether Ramadhin was owner in possession of whole of the disputed property in question or not. This fact was not proved from the evidence. This is not a question of law but are a question of fact that could be decided on the basis of evidence as has been done by the lower courts by acceptable and apparently correct findings, which are not erroneous. Plaintiff no.-2 Kaushalya Devi had never pleaded herself to be owner or co-owner of disputed property in question. Apart from it, as it has been discussed above, present appellant has no right to sue and no right to continue appeal and in absence of any pleading that she has no right in disputed property. Apart from it, as discussed above, the cause of action for the suit had already abated after death of Ramadhin, therefore these findings of lower courts are found correct that original suit and first appeal was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the lower courts are well reasoned, and are based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidences on record. Accordingly this second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the lower courts are well reasoned, and are based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidences on record. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law was involved in the case before the High Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiffs can be sustained. 11. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed.