ORDER 1. Appellant/original plaintiff has filed this second appeal under section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.68-A/2013 by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, whereby the judgment and decree passed on 7.1.2009 in Civil Suit No.45-A/2006 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of his share in disputed agricultural lands, partition and mesne profit has been affirmed. 2. Admittedly, appellant Charanlal and his brothers Mehtu, Ram Prasad, Mehtab and Ajab are sons of Nanhu. Mehtu, Mehtab and Ajab had expired. The respondents No.1 and 2 are LRs of Mehtu, respondents No.3 to 5 are LRs of Mehtab and the respondents No.7 to 9 are LRs of Ajab. It is also not disputed that agricultural lands of village Kundalikala of Tahsil Parasia, District Chhindwara bearing Survey No.113/5 area 0.567 hectares and Survey No.114/4 area 0.061 hectare, total area 0.628 hectare had been previously sold by the appellant to purchaser Ammobai. 3. The appellant Charanlal filed a suit before the trial Court on the pleadings that his father late Nanhu and late Bhoora were the cousin brothers, who were co-owners of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.77, 112/8, 112/10, 112/11, 79, 80, 81 and 86, whose total area was 28.45 acres of vilalge Kundalikala, in which each of them was having equal share. On 17.4.1953, appellant Charanlal with his brother Mehtab, Ram Prasad and Ajab purchased from above mentioned Bhoora, his half share i.e. 14 acres 22.5 decimals in total lands 28.45 acres and got possession of it, thereafter lands were undivided. On 5.6.1961, Nanhu, Mehtu, Mehtab, Ram Prasad and Ajab sold 2.65 acres land from Survey Nos.81 and 86 to Gobareya and delivered possession. Thereafter remaining 25.80 acres disputed land of suit is undivided property of appellant and the respondents No.1 to 9. Nanhu had sold 2.65 acres land from his share of 14.22 acres, thus share of Nanhu was only 11.57 acres, in which each of the appellant and his four other brothers is having 1/5th share. Similarly in the land purchased on 17.4.1953, each of the appellant and his three purchaser brothers is having 1/4th share. Thus the appellant’s total share was 5.87 acres, from which after deducting the 1.52 acres sold by the appellant to Ammobai, the appellant is having share of 4.35 acres in disputed land. 4. Similarly in the land purchased on 17.4.1953, each of the appellant and his three purchaser brothers is having 1/4th share. Thus the appellant’s total share was 5.87 acres, from which after deducting the 1.52 acres sold by the appellant to Ammobai, the appellant is having share of 4.35 acres in disputed land. 4. It was also pleaded by the appellant that the above mentioned joint agricultural lands were not divided in life time of Nanhu. Each of the respondents No.1 to 9 had got separate mutation of his name in revenue record without any legal partition. The respondent No.10 Bihari and respondent No.11 Ramesh are having no relation with the appellant's family, but each of them had got some land mutated separately in revenue record in his name. Thus the appellant filed a suit for declaration of his share, partition and mesne profit. 5. Before the trial Court, the respondents No.1 to 8 filed joint written statement and respondent No.10 Bihari filed separate W.S., in which similar pleadings were taken. It was pleaded by above mentioned respondents that the respondent No.10 Bihari is also a son of Nanhu and actually Nanhu was having six sons, but the appellant had not given actual family tree. Bihari is also a brother of Charanlal, Mehtu, Ram Prasad, Mehtab and Ajab. Deceased Mehtab's three daughters have not been made parties in the suit by the appellant. Actually, about 40 years before in the year 1977, there had been a mutual partition between the appellant and all his brothers and each of them had received separate Bhu-Adhikar Pushtika from the revenue department and each brother had got his share in partition. Like appellant Charanlal, some other brothers had also sold some lands separately to concerned purchaser. The appellant himself had sold some lands from his share to Ammobai. The respondents have developed the lands fallen in their shares. There is no question of any new partition. Previously Nanhu and Bhoora had taken some loan in reference to which disputed lands were sold in auction, to a person named Baba who later on returned the purchased lands to the LRs of Nanhu and thereafter the lands were divided. Thus dismissal of the suit was prayed. 6. After recording of the evidence, the trial Court gave findings that“the appellant remained failed in proving that the respondents No.10 Bihari is not a son of Nanhu. Thus dismissal of the suit was prayed. 6. After recording of the evidence, the trial Court gave findings that“the appellant remained failed in proving that the respondents No.10 Bihari is not a son of Nanhu. Previously the lands were of joint ownership of Nanhu and Bhoora and on 17.4.1953, lands were actually purchased by joint Hindu family of Nanhu and his sons, appellant also remained failed in proving that the disputed lands were undivided. The appellant has also failed to prove that he is having share of 5.87 acres in the alleged disputed lands of 25.80 acre. The appellant is not entitled for any partition. The appellant is not entitled for any mesne profit. It was not proved that the respondents No.10 and 11 had separately got illegal mutation on parts of disputed lands. The appellant has properly valued his suit, but his suit was time barred and thus the appellant's suit was totally dismissed. The first appeal filed by the appellant had remained unsuccessful. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has recorded finding that the disputed lands were joint family property of appellant's father Nanhu and Bhoora, then it should have been held by the Courts below that the appellant/original plaintiff is having undivided share in it and both Courts below have erred in holding that the suit was time barred. It has been argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse to the evidence available on record. 8. Appellant Charanlal (PW1) deposed that his father Nanhu, after death of his first wife Pusia, had made Rusia his second wife, who had brought a son (Bihari), who was son of her first husband Jhadu, but he admitted in para 20 that he could not say that Bihari was born one year after Rusia became wife of Nanhu. Thus the evidence of Charanlal was uncertain about paternity of Bihari. Appellant's witness Dheer Singh (PW2) had clearly deposed that he did not know what has been written in the affidavit relating to his examination-in-chief and had clearly deposed that he has no knowledge about the time and place of birth of Bihari. From the other facts came in cross-examination of the appellant, it was clear that Bihari was born after 8 years from the marriage of Nanhu and Rusia, because Bihari is about 10 years younger then the appellant. From the other facts came in cross-examination of the appellant, it was clear that Bihari was born after 8 years from the marriage of Nanhu and Rusia, because Bihari is about 10 years younger then the appellant. The appellant clearly admitted in cross-examination (Para 26) that he is having a dispute with Bihari in reference to his personal land and thus he has challenged the paternity of Bihari by filing the suit. 9. The appellant's other real brothers admitted in their pleadings and evidence that Bihari is also a son of Nanhu. The original Bhu-Adhikar Pustika Ex.D-1 indicates that the relating land is recorded in the name of Bihari son of Nanhu in the year 1977. Thus, it was established that the challenge to Bihari's paternity by the appellant was totally groundless. 10. Similarly, appellant Charanlal (PW1) had clearly admitted in his cross-examination (Para 23) that a Bhu-Adhikar Pushtika had been made for each brother separately and thereafter, he had sold about 1½ acres of land to Ammobai, a son of his brother Gulab had sold some land from his share to Balakram and Ajab had also sold some land of his share to Ammobai. He had clearly admitted in para 24 that after mutual partition, each brother is separately cultivating the land and after sending a notice for demand of partition through advocate to each brother in the year 2001, he did not file any suit for the period of seven years. He has clearly admitted in para 25 that his each brother including himself had made his house, well in his land and clearly admitted that with partition in revenue record, a separate trace maps had been prepared by Patwari in relation to each brother. Thus, the evidence“of the appellant/plaintiff does not appear to be reliable in comparison to the evidence given by the respondents' witnesses Phool Singh (DW1), Bhadua (DW2), Bihari (DW3) and Gulab (DW4).The sale deed (Ex.P-17) dated 30.5.1953 executed by Bhoora itself indicates that at that time, the appellant Charanlal was only 6 years old, his brother Mehtab was only 14 years old, thus the finding recorded by the Courts below that actually the share of Bhoora in previously joint lands was purchased by the joint family of Nanhu and his sons, appears to be totally justified and in accordance with law. The appellant himself had not filed any revenue record after the year 1968. The appellant himself had not filed any revenue record after the year 1968. Thus, it is apparent that both the Courts below had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties and any finding of the Courts below could not be said to be perverse or against the record. 11. It is clear that the appellant's second appeal is not having any question of law rather than the substantial question of law and it is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 12. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed at motion stage. With copy of this order, record of each Court below be returned for information. No order as to costs.