JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2010, passed by the District Judge, Lohardaga in Title Appeal No.11 of 2009 whereby and where under, the learned lower appellate court has modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Lohardaga in Partition Suit No.07 of 2004 by holding that the appellants are entitled to 1/9th share of the land of Khata no.61 and 1/5th share of the land of Khata no.247 of the suit land. 3. The case of the plaintiff, who was respondent before the first appellate court and the original appellant in this second appeal, is that the land of Khata No.61 of village Senha P.S. No.189 stood recorded in the names of Chama Oraon, Rama Oraon both sons of Karma Oraon, Mostt. Podho Orain, wife of Kura Oraon and Karma Oraon son of Barha Oraon. The said four persons being the co-sharers of the said property under Khata No.61. The said property is the ancestral property of the said four co-sharers having equal share. Out of the said four co-sharers, Mostt. Podho Orain died issueless and her share of property devolved to the share of Karma Oraon son of Barha Oraon and Birsa Oraon son of Karma Oraon. The said recorded tenant, Rama Oraon has four sons namely Sitaram Oraon, Bartu Oraon, Sukru Oraon and Budhu Oraon. Out of the four sons of Rama Oraon; Sitaram Oraon, Budhu Oraon and Sukru Oraon died issueless and their properties devolved upon the Bartu Oraon. Bartu Oraon has three sons namely Sahdeo Oraon (who is the plaintiff in the suit), Mangra Oraon and Dukhna Oraon (Performa defendant no.13). It is also the case of the plaintiff that the land under R.S. Khata No.247 under the said police station was jointly purchased by Saniya Oraon, the only son of Chama Oraon, Bartu Oraon, Budhu Oraon, Sitaram Oraon all sons of Rama Oraon and Karma Oraon son of Barha Oraon. However, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming 1/3rd share of the suit land on partition and consequential benefits. 4. Learned trial court after considering the evidence in record held that there is unity of title and possession amongst the parties in respect of the properties under Khata nos.61 and 247. However, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming 1/3rd share of the suit land on partition and consequential benefits. 4. Learned trial court after considering the evidence in record held that there is unity of title and possession amongst the parties in respect of the properties under Khata nos.61 and 247. So far as the land under Khata no.61 is concerned the trial court observed that after death of Podho Orain, Chama Oraon and Rama Oraon have become half and half owner of the entire land of Khata no.61 ignoring the fact that there is another co-sharer namely Karma Oraon son of Barha Oraon and who is also the subsisting legal heir, though his name has not been mentioned in the genealogical table but his name has been pleaded in paragraph no.10 of the plaint and by thus observing, the trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share of both the land under Khata nos.61 and 247 and decreed the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge-Lohardaga and the same was numbered as Title Appeal No.11 of 2009 which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the impugned judgment and decree. 6. Learned Lower Appellate Court in respect of land under Khata no.61 considered the fact that apart from Chama Oraon, Rama Oraon, Mostt. 6. Learned Lower Appellate Court in respect of land under Khata no.61 considered the fact that apart from Chama Oraon, Rama Oraon, Mostt. Podho Orain; the fourth co-sharer namely Karma Oraon son of Barha Oraon was also there and is having equal share and this fact was not considered by the trial court and hence, in respect of the land under Khata no.61, the learned lower appellate court held that all three are entitled to 1/3rd share of the land under Khata no.61 and consequent upon the death of Podho Orain; Chama Oraon, Rama Oraon and Karma Oraon son of Barha Oraon become 1/3rd owner of each of the land under Khata no.61 and since consequent upon the death of three sons of Rama Oraon namely Sitaram Oraon, Budhu Oraon and Sukru Oraon without leaving any heirs being issueless, the entire property is devolved upon Bartu Oraon and thereby Bartu Oraon has become owner of the 1/3rd share under the land in Khata no.61 and after his death, the appellant Sahdeo Oraon who is one of the three sons of Bartu Oraon is entitled to 1/9th share of the land under Khata no.61. 7. So far as the land under Khata no.247 is concerned, the learned lower appellate court considered the fact that the said property was jointly purched by five persons namely Saniya Oraon son of Chama Oraon, Bartu Oraon, Budhu Oraon, Sitaram Oraon, the three being the sons of Rama Oraon and Barha Oraon so each of them is entitled to 1/5th share of the land under Khata no.247 and consequent upon the death of Sitaram Oraon and Budhu Oraon who died without leaving any heir so their property devolved upon Bartu Oraon and thus Bartu Oraon is entitled for 3/5th share of the land under Khata no.247 and the plaintiff being one of the three sons of Bartu Oraon is entitled to 1/5th share of the land under Khata no.247 and modified the judgment and decree of the trial court to that extent. 8. Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants on instruction from Mr. R.M. Pathak, Advocate submits that the learned court below failed to consider the evidence appearing in record in its proper perspective. 8. Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants on instruction from Mr. R.M. Pathak, Advocate submits that the learned court below failed to consider the evidence appearing in record in its proper perspective. Learned counsel fairly submits that though in ground (a) of the second appeal, it has been mentioned that the lower appellate court has allowed a share to the plaintiff as 1/5th of the total scheduled property but in fact, the same has been mentioned erroneously and also fairly submits that the plaintiff-appellants do not press for their claim of the property under Khata no.60. 9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the records, I find that the learned lower appellate court has thoroughly discussed the evidence in record threadbare and after considering each of the issues framed by the trial court, has given its independent finding on each of the issues. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme of India, in paragraph-10 of the case of Gurvachan Kaur and Others vs. Salikram (dead) through LRS., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 530 as under:- "10. It is settled law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse. This being the position, it must be held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court on the issues of existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and default committed by the latter in payment of rent." (Emphasis Supplied). 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out any specific instance of any particular evidence being not considered. The learned Counsel for the appellants also could not point out any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 11. Thus there being no merit, this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without any costs.