JUDGMENT Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs are as under:- "1. Whether the finding recorded by the IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha in Civil Suit No.16-A/2001 on issues No.5 and 6 is unsustainable being contrary to the evidence, oral as well as documentary, on record ? 2. What is the effect of, the first appellate Court not considering at all the ground relating to earlier partition ?" [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court]. 2. The suit property bearing Khasra Nos.266/3 and 282/2 area 4.69 acres of land was earlier held by Goutarhin of village Khairwar Sumitra Bai, she failed to pay land revenue and therefore, the land was forfeited. Since the father of the plaintiffs namely Bandel and father of the defendants namely Ratan were in possession and it is the case of the plaintiffs that the land was settled in their favour, but the defendants' father Ratan was elder one, therefore, it was settled in his name and after death of Bandel and Ratan, the land came in possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants and they made the land cultivable. The land was partitioned 30 years prior to the date of filing of the suit and Ratan & Bangel remained in possession during their lifetime and after death of Ratan, defendant No.2 raised some dispute, in which meeting of panchayat was convened and the parties were directed to remain in possession as per partition already made. The plaintiff relied upon unregistered sale deed dated 25.8.88 and the defendants started demanding 1/2 share in the suit property which necessitated the filing of the suit for 1/2 share in the suit land bearing Khasra Nos.266/3 and 282/2 area 4.69 acres. 3. Defendants No.1A and 1B filed their written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and also filed counter-claim. 4. Defendant No.2 filed his separate written statement and also stated that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and as such, they are not entitled for decree of declaration of title and partition. 5. 3. Defendants No.1A and 1B filed their written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and also filed counter-claim. 4. Defendant No.2 filed his separate written statement and also stated that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and as such, they are not entitled for decree of declaration of title and partition. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 17.1.2002, dismissed the suit holding that only the defendants' father Ratan was in possession of the land held by Sumitra Bai as successor and fact of partition between Ratan & Bandel is not proved and fact of convening of panchayat meeting to resolve the dispute by defendant No.2 is also not proved. It was further held that the plaintiffs are in possession of 1/2 share in the suit property is also not proved. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred first appeal under section 96 of the CPC before the first appellate Court. The said Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, in which substantial questions of law have been formulated by this Court, which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 6. Mr.Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in answering issues No.5 and 6 as negative, it ought to have been answered affirmative as the plaintiffs are in possession of 1/2 share in the suit property and referred para-12 of statement of Kanhai @ Runga (DW-4) to demonstrate that the plaintiffs are in possession of 1/2 share in the suit property, as such, finding with regard to issues No.5 and 6 is perverse. 7. Mr.H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Ms Richa Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to. 3/defendants, would support the impugned judgment and decree. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Since the substantial question of law relates to Issues No.5 and 6 framed by the trial Court, it would be expedient to reproduce the issues framed by the trial Court and its finding recorded therein 10. 9. Since the substantial question of law relates to Issues No.5 and 6 framed by the trial Court, it would be expedient to reproduce the issues framed by the trial Court and its finding recorded therein 10. It is admitted position on record that the land was granted to Goutarhin Sumitra Bai, but since Sumitra Bai failed to pay the land revenue, the land was forfeited and it is the case of the plaintiffs that since they were cultivating and managing the same, it was given to the plaintiffs' father and the defendants' father, whereas it is the case of the defendants that only the defendants' father was in possession of the suit land and thereafter their successor-in-title are in possession of the suit land. The trial Court while recording finding on issue No.3 has clearly recorded a finding that in the land held by Goutarhin Sumitra Bai from the Government, only Ratan, predecessor-in-title of the defendants was in possession of the suit land. The trial Court further recorded a finding that it is incorrect that the after death of Buddhu, the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title and the defendants' predecessor-in-title both came in possession jointly and they were allotted the land by Kawardha State and they have partitioned. In appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, it appears that both findings have been affirmed by the first appellate Court and in second appeal, these findings have not been challenged by the plaintiffs and no substantial question of law has been formulated on such findings. 11. Issue No.5 relates to inter-se dispute between two sons i.e. defendants No.1 & 2 and issue No.6 relates to possession of the defendants over the suit property to the extent of 1/4 share and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit property. 11. Issue No.5 relates to inter-se dispute between two sons i.e. defendants No.1 & 2 and issue No.6 relates to possession of the defendants over the suit property to the extent of 1/4 share and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit property. It has already been held by two Courts below that after the suit land was forfeited by the Kawardha State from Sumitra Bai, it came in exclusive possession of predecessorin-title of the defendants i.e. Ratan and after death of Ratan, the defendants are in possession of the suit land and it was never given to the plaintiffs' father & the defendants' father jointly, as such, finding recorded by two Courts below that the suit land after forfeiture came in possession of the defendants' father Ratan and thereafter in possession of the defendants is purely finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Finding recorded on issues No.5 and 6 by both the Courts below is clearly finding of fact binding to this Court. Likewise, there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the suit land fell in share of Ratan, predecessor-intitle of the defendants, as such, non-consideration of earlier partition has not caused any serious prejudice to the case of the appellants/plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality or perversity in said finding. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 12. Accordingly, the second appeal being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 13. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.