JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. L Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present appellants are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 45/2005 which was filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants. The facts of the suit of the plaintiff in brief is that 22B 3K 12L of land covered by various dag numbers under patta No. 40 of village Satbhanirtup under Mouja Howly originally stood in the name of late Moyez Uddin and he was in exclusive possession of the said land and this plot of land was described in Schedule A to the plaint. Out of schedule A land, Moyez Uddin sold out 3B 0K 12L of land to late Jinnat Ali Master whose name was mutated and was recorded as co-pattadar. Thereafter, Jinnat Ali Master sold the said land to one Upendra Khatriya, the defendant No. 6 and the possession was also delivered to him. Moyez Uddin died leaving behind his sons, namely, late Iman Ali, Md. Hanif Uddin, Md. Joynal Abdin and Md. Talebar Rahman and two daughters, namely, Nekjan Bibi and Hajera Bibi. On the death of Moyez Uddin, the said land was inherited by his legal heirs. The elder son Iman Ali died in the year 1979 leaving his minor sons i.e. the plaintiffs/appellants No. 1 and 2 and three daughters who were the plaintiffs/appellants No. 3, 4 and 5. It is further stated that late Iman Ali was in joint possession of schedule A land along with the defendants but his name was not mutated in the revenue records. Since 1995 the defendants/respondents and the father of the plaintiffs/appellants were living in the same basti jointly. Since the name of Iman Ali was not mutated in the revenue records, the name of the present plaintiffs/appellants are also not mutated as legal heirs of late Iman Ali. So, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred title suit who are brothers and sisters, for declaration of their right, title and interest over the B schedule land and accordingly mutation be granted. Further, it was prayed that the plaintiffs/appellants be put to separate possession in respect of the share of late Iman Ali by way of partition over the schedule B land. 3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing their written statement and counter claim. Further, it was prayed that the plaintiffs/appellants be put to separate possession in respect of the share of late Iman Ali by way of partition over the schedule B land. 3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing their written statement and counter claim. It is the defence taken by the defendants/respondents that the land described in Schedule A was possessed by the father of the plaintiffs/appellants measuring 19B 2K 11L covered by Dag No. 45 and 46 under KP Patta No. 31 which is described in Schedule X of the counter claim. Over the said land, the name of Iman Ali, the father of the plaintiffs/appellants, was recorded. Moyez Uddin left three plots of land measuring 9B 1K 4L in patta No. 171 in village Kalhbhanga, 19B 2K 11L of land covered by periodic patta No. 31 in village Balabhitha and 19B 3K 1L of land in patta No. 40 in village Satbhanirtup. The father of the plaintiffs/appellants occupied 19B 2K 11L of land at Balabhitha and the remaining 9B 1K 4L under KP Patta No. 171 and 19B 3K 1L covered by patta No. 40 at village Satbhanirtup were mutated in the names of defendants/respondents respectively by the Circle Officer, Barnagar Circle. Late Iman Ali sold entire land measuring 19B 2K 11L and settled in a plot of land measuring 1 Katha in the southern part of the Schedule B land. Accordingly, the defendants/respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit and to pass a decree declaring the entire land of Schedule B land in the plaint as well as described in schedule X and Y of the counter claim were joint properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants and the land under schedule X to be the share of Iman Ali. The plaintiffs have no title over the suit land described in schedule B of the plaint as well as in schedule X of the counter claim. It was also prayed for partition of the A schedule land of the plaint as well as land of schedule X and Y of the counter claim. 4. Upon perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. 4. Upon perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree as prayed for? 7. Whether the defendants are entitled for a decree as prayed in the counter claim? 8. To what relief or reliefs the parties are entitled? 5. The plaintiffs/appellants exhibited, Exhibits 1 and 2, certified copy of Jamabandi under patta No. 31 of village Balabhita and the Jamabandi under patta No. 40 of village Satbhanirtup. Exhibit 3 is the N.R.C. entry record, Exhibit 4 is the certified copy of voter list of 47 No. Sorbhog Assembly Constituency of village Kalabhanga and Exhibit 5 is the certified copy of voter list of the year 1970. On the part of the defendants/respondents, they exhibited Exhibit A, the certified copy of Jamabandi of KP Patta No. 31, Exhibit B certified copy of Jamabandi for KP Patta No. 40 and Exhibit C certified copy of Jamabandi for KP Patta No. 171. Exhibits D1 to F2 are registered sale deeds by way of which Iman Ali sold land of schedule A to various purchasers. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants. The learned trial court while discussing issue No. 5 held that on the basis of the exhibits i.e. Exhibits D1 to F2, the registered sale deeds, the DW1 (the defendant) was able to prove that late Iman Ali sold land from the schedule A to various persons and on calculation of the area of the land, the learned trial court came to the finding that his entire share was sold to various persons. On the other hand, the PW 1 i.e. the plaintiff/appellant in his cross examination stated that he does not know anything about the suit land and how much land was sold by his father. On the other hand, the PW 1 i.e. the plaintiff/appellant in his cross examination stated that he does not know anything about the suit land and how much land was sold by his father. On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and on perusal of the exhibits, the learned trial court held that as Iman Ali has already exhausted his share, under such circumstances, the plaintiffs/appellants are not entitled for any share in the schedule land. Accordingly discussing the other issues, the learned trial court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim of the defendants/respondents. 6. Being aggrieved of the said judgment of the trial court, title appeal No. 10/2007 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff No. 1. The said title appeal No. 10/2007 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.2013 after hearing the parties to the appeal. The learned first appellate court on perusal of the evidence and the findings of the learned trial court upheld the findings of the learned trial court and accordingly dismissed the first appeal. 7. Thereafter, the present plaintiffs/appellants had preferred this second appeal. This second appeal was admitted on 11.06.2014 without framing any substantial question of law. Accordingly, vide order dated 04.01.2017 this court fixed this matter for framing of substantial question of law and for admission under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC. 8. Mr. Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the land claimed to be sold by the father of the plaintiff/appellant No. 1 is not the correct position inasmuch as, in the written statement against the counter claim filed by the plaintiffs/appellants, a plea was taken that the said land out of schedule A was sold for the necessity of the family of the plaintiffs/appellants which was a joint family along with the defendants at that relevant point of time. In addition to that, it was also pleaded in the said written statement that some land were acquired by the Government and as such the learned trial court’s finding with regard to the issue No. 5 is to be set aside. 9. In addition to that, it was also pleaded in the said written statement that some land were acquired by the Government and as such the learned trial court’s finding with regard to the issue No. 5 is to be set aside. 9. On perusal of the judgments passed by both learned courts below, this court finds that though it was pleaded in the written statement filed by the plaintiffs/appellants against the counter claim that owing to the necessity of the joint family of late Moyez Uddin, the father of the plaintiffs/appellants compelled to sale some portion of the land out of schedule A and acquisition of the land by the Government, no piece of evidence was led by the present appellants. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land shown to be sold by late Iman Ali does not belong to the claim made by the defendants/respondents, inasmuch as, the land purportedly sold by late Iman Ali is different from KP Patta number as shown in the schedule X and Y of the counter claim. The said submission of the learned counsel cannot be taken into consideration, inasmuch as, the defendants/respondents have been able to show from the copy of Jamabandi that the land of schedule A stood in the name of late Iman Ali and the subsequent mutation in the schedule X and Y of the counter claim stood in the name of the respondents, leaving the name of the father of the plaintiffs/appellants as he took his share over total Schedule A land. In such a situation and on the face of no evidence being led by the plaintiffs/appellants, the findings of the learned courts below are held to be correct and accordingly there is no substantial question of law to be formulated in this second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.