JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Aashish Kumar appearing for the respondent nos.1, 9 and 10. 2. The appellants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2016 and 14.03.2016 respectively passed by the Principal District Judge, Jamtara in Title Appeal No.31 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned Principal District Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2015 and 19.06.2015 respectively, passed in Title (P) No.13 of 2003 and dismissed the appeal of appellants. 3. It comes from the judgment of the court below that it was the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that both the parties are Hindus and governed by Mikashara School of Hindu Law in the matter of inheritance and succession. 4. The suit properties as discussed by the trial court as well as the appellate court in the name of recorded tenant Sona Majhi in the last survey settlement. The suit trees described in Schedule “C” of the plaint which stand on the suit lands were grown and possessed by the predecessors of the parties from time to time. The recorded tenant Sona Majhi had three daughters namely Makhni, Gangu, Kokia @ Furki and two sons namely Bodi and Chaitan of whom Bodi had predeceased Sona Majhi during his boyhood. Makhni had also predeceased him. Sona Majhi and his son Chaitan were co-parceners and the suit properties were their ancestral properties. Sona Majhi died in or about 1950 leaving behind his widow Jiria Debi as his next heir and successor. Sona Majhi had half share in the suit properties. On the death of Sona Majhi, his widow Jiria Debi inherited the moiety (half) share of her husband in the suit properties under the provisions of Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. She however possessed the suit properties jointly with her son Chaitan. Sona Majhi’s widow Jiria Debi died in or about 1960. On the death of Jiria Debi, her moiety (half) interest in the suit properties devolved upon her two surviving daughters, Gangu, Kokia @ Kurki and one surviving son Chaitan in equal shares. They possessed the suit properties jointly so long as they were alive. Kokia @ Furki died in or about 1962. She was married twice. On the death of Jiria Debi, her moiety (half) interest in the suit properties devolved upon her two surviving daughters, Gangu, Kokia @ Kurki and one surviving son Chaitan in equal shares. They possessed the suit properties jointly so long as they were alive. Kokia @ Furki died in or about 1962. She was married twice. From her first husband namely Bejo Mahato, she had only one son Moti Mahato and from her second husband namely Gopal Mahato, she had one son Jagdish Mahato and two daughters Sundhua and Ambli. All the above named sons and daughters of Kokia @ Furki had succeeded to her interest in the suit properties on her death. Subsequently to the death of Kokia, her son Moti Mahato died leaving behind one son and two daughters as his next heirs, who are defendant nos.2, 3 and 4. Sundhuwa also died leaving one son and one daughter as her next heirs, who are defendant nos.5 and 6. Chaitan Manjhi had died in or about 1965 leaving a daughter Bhadu Mahatain and his widow Hingli as his next heirs. The said widow Hingli and Bhadu Mahatain both died in or about 1975 leaving behind one son and daughter i.e. Thulu and Chanchala, the plaintiff nos.9 and 10 as Bhadu Mahatain’s next heirs and successors. Makhni Mahatain’s husband Ashaman Mahato had married Gangu Mahatain after the death of Makhini Mahatain. Gangu Mahatain died in 1970 leaving behind two daughters Mando Mahatain and Chapala as her next heirs. Mando Mahatain is the plaintiff no.1. Chapala died on 04.09.2009 leaving behind her sons and daughters, who are plaintiff nos.2 to 8. 5. It was further case of the plaintiffs that all the parties are in joint possession of the suit properties and no partition by metes and bounds has taken place between them but for sake of convenience the parties possessed different portions of the suit properties by private family arrangement without meaning the same as partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs jointly have got 5/6th share of the suit properties. The plaintiffs jointly have got 5/6th share of the suit properties. The defendants have was creating disturbance in the possession of the plaintiffs taking advantage of their residence in the village where the suit properties are situated due to which the plaintiffs demanded partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds on 01.12.2002 last but the defendants refused partition of the suit properties and referred the plaintiffs to court. The cause of action for the suit arose in mouza Dighoria on and from 01.12.2002. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs. (i) A preliminary decree adjudging 5/6th share of the plaintiffs jointly in the sui5t properties in Schedule “A”, “B” and “C” of the plaint. (ii) Final decree demarcating by meets and bounds the share of the plaintiff as per preliminary decree. (iii) Separate possession through the process of court. (iv) Cost of the suit. (v) Such other relief or relieves the plaintiffs are entitled in equity and justice. 6. On being summoned, the defendant nos.1, 3 and 7 appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. Defendant No.1 Jagdish Mahto died on 10.06.2009 accordingly his name was deleted. A common objection raised by them as the suit is not at all maintainable in law. The plaintiffs had no locus standi to file or maintain that case. The plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in a partition suit like the present one. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is barred by the principle of estoppel and waiver and lower court inherent the jurisdiction to entertain or try and the suit actual valuation of suit properties was not disclosed and the defendants denied all the allegations made in the plaint. 7. The statement made in para 5 of the plaint was monstrously false and are denied. The correct position regarding the legal heirs of Sona Majhi are according to the defendants as follows: (i) Sona Maji the recorded tenant had two daughters namely Lokhi Bala and Furki @ Kokia and two sons namely Chaitan and Bodi. (ii) Makhoni and Gangu were not the daughters of Sona but they were daughters of Dayal Mahato of Digharia. (iii) The real fact is that Lokhi Bala one of the daughters of Sona Majhi was married with Asmani Mahto. The said Lokhi Bala died leaving her two sons namely Mahadeb @ Madha and Sahadeb @ Sadha. (ii) Makhoni and Gangu were not the daughters of Sona but they were daughters of Dayal Mahato of Digharia. (iii) The real fact is that Lokhi Bala one of the daughters of Sona Majhi was married with Asmani Mahto. The said Lokhi Bala died leaving her two sons namely Mahadeb @ Madha and Sahadeb @ Sadha. The said Mahadeb and Sahadeb were not the sons of Makhni as falsely shown in the Genealogy of the plaint. (iv) After the death of Lokhi Bala, her husband Asmani Mahato married Gango Mahatain, daughter of Dayal Mahato through whom Asmani Mahato had two daughters namely plaintiff No.1 Mando Mahatain and Chapala Mahatain, mother of the plaintiffs nos.2 to 8. (v) As a matter of fact Makhni Mahatain another daughter of Dayal Mahato was married at village Alakbera with one Babulal Mahato and she had a daughter, who was married with one Kisto Mahato at village Basti Palajori. (vi) Not only Bodi Maji but also the sons of Sona Maji died during the lifetime Sona Majhi. Bodi Maji died during his boyhood while Chaitan Maji another of Sona Maji died during the lifetime of Sona Maji just two or three years after the last survey settlement. After the death of Chaitan Maji, his wife left the house of Sona Maji and thereafter she had no connection with the family of Sona Maji and severed herself from the family of Sona Maji. 8. It was further case of the defendants that the Chaitan Maji died during the lifetime of Sona Maji so his coparcenery interest reverted back to Sona Maji and as such Sona Maji became the exclusive owner of all the properties recorded in his name. Accordingly, Sona Maji died in the year 1935 not in the year 1950. The name of the widow of Sona Maji was Nirashi Maji not Jiria Debi as falsely alleged. After the death of Sona Maji his widow Nirashi Maji succeeded to the entire interest of her husband in the properties in suit. The question of possessing the suit property by the widow of Sona Maji jointly with Chaitan Maji was denied. The name of the widow of Sona Maji was Nirashi Maji not Jiria Debi as falsely alleged. After the death of Sona Maji his widow Nirashi Maji succeeded to the entire interest of her husband in the properties in suit. The question of possessing the suit property by the widow of Sona Maji jointly with Chaitan Maji was denied. They have further taken point that the Sona Maji had no surviving son and as the previous husband of Furki @ Kokia had died so he got his daughter Furki @ Kokia married with Gopal Mahto in Gharjamai form and Sona Maji kept his daughter Kokia and her husband Gopal Mahato in his house who used to look after both Sona Maji and his wife and to cultivate all his lands. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial court made the following issues for deciding the suit, which is quoted herein under: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? (ii) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (iii) Are Makhoni and Gangu daughters of Sona Mahato? (iv) Whether the parties have their joint title and possession over the suit properties. (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relieves as claimed? 10. While deciding the issue no.3 which is root of the dispute, the trial court as well as the appellate court came to the finding on the basis of the entire evidences on the point that the witnesses examined from sides of plaintiffs who were nearer relatives or they have disclosed their special means of knowledge regarding Genealogy of family of Sona Majhi. They have clearly supported that Sona Majhi had three daughters and two sons. Makhani Mahatain and Gangu Mahatain were daughters of Sona Majhi. There was documents Ext.1 certified copy of the plaint of Title Partition Suit No.21 of 2000 and Ext.3, certified copy of judgment of same case to show that Makhni and Gangu were wives of Ashman Mahto and Mahadeb and Sahadeb were sons of Makhani Mahatain. The case of the defendant with regard to the Mahadeb and Sahadeb were daughters of Lakhibala and Makhani were married with Babulal Mahato is disapproved by these two documents. 11. The case of the defendant with regard to the Mahadeb and Sahadeb were daughters of Lakhibala and Makhani were married with Babulal Mahato is disapproved by these two documents. 11. The trial court as well appellate court came to the finding that the D.W.1 evidence of other witnesses examined from the side of defendants, has not shown the relationship of witnesses or their special means of their knowledge regarding Genealogical Table furnished by defendants, and after going through the evidences and documents, the issue no.3 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and finally after detailed discussion deciding the issues the suit of the plaintiff no.1 and decreed in part for her 1/12th share in the suit property. 12. Aggrieved with the same the appellant herein filed the Title Appeal No.31 of 2015 which was decided vide judgment dated 29.02.2016 the appellate court has also considered the entire facts including the witnesses and the documents and after discussing deposition of the witnesses and documents came to the finding that there is no illegality so far as the judgment of the trial court is concerned and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial court. 13. Mr. Nityanand Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the other defendants except the plaintiff no.1 raised all the issues and the plaintiffs have not contested the case in spite of that the suit has been decided. This is only argument which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant. 14. Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court after considering all aspects of the matter including the evidences of the witnesses and the documents came to the concurrent finding as such there is no illegality with regard to judgment rendered by the trial court as well as the appellate court. He further submits that so far as the issue no.3 is concerned, that has been discussed in detail and the issue which is in the root of the case. 15. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not accepted in view of the Order I Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which clearly provides that the court may give judgment for or against one or more of the joint parties. 16. 15. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not accepted in view of the Order I Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which clearly provides that the court may give judgment for or against one or more of the joint parties. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the judgment and record of this case, this Court come to the conclusion that the trial court as well as the appellate court has entered into detailed discussion of the evidences of the witnesses and the documents, delivered the judgment. Both the courts are the first fact finding courts who have proceeded with the case in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not been able to show any perversity in the judgment under appeal. 17. This Court is conscious of the fact that this Court sitting under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if any substantial question arises, then only the second appeal can be admitted. This Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, accordingly the second appeal stands dismissed. 18. Interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.