JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment dated 15.10.2015 passed by learned District Judge-II, Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 26 of 2011, whereby, the appellate court has confirmed the judgment dated 08.06.2011 and decree dated 16.06.2011 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 15 of 2000, wherein the learned Sub-Judge-II, Deoghar has partly decreed the suit on contest without cost. The appellants before this Court are defendants in the suit being Title Suit No. 15 of 2000, which was partly decreed against defendant nos. 3, 5, 7 and 10, against which, an appeal being Title Appeal No. 26 of 2011 preferred by the appellants was dismissed and, therefore, this Second Appeal has been filed. 3. The case of the appellants is that there are disputes between the parties with regard to the properties mentioned in schedule of the plaint being Title Suit No. 15 of 2000. The details of the schedule properties are as follows: (I) The pari being 1/3rd out of 2 Annas 8 Pie of the Temple of Shri Baba Baidyanath Deoghar which comes by turn on 19th day of each month. (II) Dhwaja Mahal Pona-Pawani of Baba Mandir. (III) One katha parti transferable land, measuring about 1 kattha, according to the local measurement. With regard to the properties mentioned in Schedule-III, the appellants/defendants states that the said property is nowhere in existence. It has been further stated that with regard to the property mentioned in Schedule-I and II, the said properties were allotted to the share of Nilkanth Jha and his branch during amicable partition and the descendants of Nilkanth Jha have been performing duty on 19th day of each month rotation wise after partition and before 1950 for which neither the plaintiff nor the defendant Uma Shankar Jha being the descendant of Kishori Jha has any concern and right, title, interest and possession over the properties of joint family. The property of Sardar Panda Lane is nowhere in existence nor is it in possession of any of the parties. The property of Sardar Panda Lane is nowhere in existence nor is it in possession of any of the parties. While denying the oral partition in the year 1953, only Yajmanka has been partitioned and the real fact is that the joint family has been disrupted and there has been severance before 1950 to which all the party members have partitioned their properties by admitting and accepting their allotted share of joint family property and has executed a panchnama in presence of respectable persons of the vicinity and the said partition is still existing. It has been further stated that the common ancestor of the parties namely Chandrika Jha has been allotted 1/18th share out of 2 Anna 8 Pie share in income of musharif pari of Baba Baidyanath Temple and Dhwaja Mahal on 19th day in rotation system. It has been further stated that Chandrika Prasad Jha acquired land measuring 3 kathas 12 dhur out of joint family fund situated in Mouza Chaksarajore Jhousagarhi, near G.S. High School, Deoghar and started construction of residential house and the structure upto plinth level was standing prior of partition, whereas, Yajmanka was main source of family income and through the amicable partition among three branches of descendants of Late Chandrika Prasad Jha, got the musharfi pari of Baba Baidyanath Temple which is now in possession of these defendants and the eldest son of Nilkanth Jha and his branch has been allotted musharfi pari of Baba Baidyanath Temple including Dhwaja Mahal as his share. It has been further stated that the family has also partitioned their Yajmanka briti and list of jajmanas and this fact about partition was reduced in writing in pachnama by way of arrangement and the aforesaid document was kept in the possession of Shyamla Nand Jha who was the then active Managing Member, who suppressed the fact and invented the oral partition and filed vexatious suit on jointness of the suit properties described in Schedule-I and Schedule-II. The family members of Nilkanth Jha have no other property allotted to their shares except musharafi pari and Dhwaja Mahal. The family members of Nilkanth Jha have no other property allotted to their shares except musharafi pari and Dhwaja Mahal. Only landed property of the joint family which was allotted to Chandrika Prasad Jha over which the plaintiff has constructed a house and residing with his family members situated in Ward No.-1 Holding No. 207 at Deoghar Municipality, whereas, the other branch of Kishori Jha has acquired properties from his maternal side over which he constructed a house and now Uma Shankar Jha has been residing in Mohalla Mansarovar Road, Deoghar whereas defendant no.3 namely Nuna Debya, wife of Late Shakti Nath Jha has acquired land from her paternal side and after constructing house, has been residing with family in Mohalla Bilasi Town. The plaintiff has no share and no concern in the suit property. 4. The case of the respondents is that the parties are Hindu and governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law and relationship between the parties were shown in a genealogical table in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It has been stated that one Dinbandhu Jha was ancestor of the parties and after his death, his legal heirs namely Lakshmi Kant Jha and Chandrika Prasad Jha partitioned their properties in the year 1924 through a registered partition deed no. 303 of the year 1924. The descendants of Lakshmi Kant Jha were not impleaded as party to the suit because their properties are not the subject matter to the suit. It has been further stated that during the life time of Chandrika Prasad Jha, all the properties allotted to him were sold except Yajmanka, Pari (turn) of Shri Baidyanath Temple and parti land situated in Mouza Sardar Panda lane. It has also been stated that after the death of Chandrika Prasad Jha, his three sons namely Nilkanth Jha, Kishori Jha and Shyamla Nand Jha also partitioned their Yajmanka through oral arrangement in the year 1953, which was not disputed by any parties. It has also been stated that after the partition of the Yajmanka, the properties namely pari (turn) of Baba Temple and the parti land of Mohalla Sardar Panda lane remained joint and are under the joint possession of all three brothers. It has also been stated that after the partition of the Yajmanka, the properties namely pari (turn) of Baba Temple and the parti land of Mohalla Sardar Panda lane remained joint and are under the joint possession of all three brothers. It has also been stated that the parties have been living in their separate houses which have been acquired by their separate income having no ancestral house and the branches of Nilkanth Jha, Kishori Jha and Shyamla Nand Jha are feeling difficulties in the enjoyment of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint which arose the dispute and differences among the parties. The plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that he has 1/3rd share in the schedule property, whereas, the legal heirs and successors of Nilkanth Jha have got 1/3rd share in the suit property. The plaintiff has also stated in the plaint that he demanded for amicable partition on 20.01.2000, but the defendants refused for amicable partition of the suit property and, therefore, the cause of action for the suit arose on 20.01.2000. 5. On the basis of above facts, the trial court has framed following issues for deciding the suit: (i) Is the suit maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether there is any unity of title or possession between the parties over the suit properties? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share in the suit properties? (v) Whether the suit properties mentioned and described in the Schedule I and II can be partitioned? (vi) Whether the suit properties mentioned and described in Schedule-III is fit for partition or not or in possession of the parties? 6. To establish the claim, the respondent/plaintiff has produced five witnesses before the court and also filed certified copy of the partition deed, which was marked as Ext.-1. The appellants/defendants have also examined five witnesses and they have also produced some documents, which were marked as Exts.-A and B and on the basis of the documents and evidences adduced by the parties, the trial court has decided the issues. While deciding issue nos. The appellants/defendants have also examined five witnesses and they have also produced some documents, which were marked as Exts.-A and B and on the basis of the documents and evidences adduced by the parties, the trial court has decided the issues. While deciding issue nos. V and VI, the trial court came to the finding that the properties mentioned in Schedule I and II can be partitioned, but properties mentioned in Schedule III can not be partitioned because the respondent/plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of the said property shown in Schedule III. While deciding issue no. III, the trial court has taken into consideration Ext.-1, which is a registered partition deed of the year 1924 and came to the finding that the properties shown in Schedule-I and II to the plaint are joint properties of both the parties and they have unity of title as well as community possession over Schedule I and II properties and accordingly, that issue was decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. After deciding rest of the issues, the trial court came to the finding that the suit is deemed to be partly decreed on contest against defendant nos. 3, 5, 7 and 10 and ex-parte against rest defendants and it was further ordered that the parties to the suit shall enjoy the suit property as per their share by turn i.e. the plaintiff shall enjoy 1/18th share out of 2 Aana 8 Pie in Musharafi right of Baba Baidyanath Jee and also the same in Dhwaja Mahal of Baba Mandir. 7. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the appellants had filed an appeal being Title Appeal No. 26 of 2011, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.10.2015 by learned District Judge-II, Deoghar. Apart from considering the issues, which have been framed before the trial court, the appellate court has framed issues in paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 15.10.2015 which are quoted herein below: (i) Whether previous partition of properties mentioned in Schedule-I and Schedule-II of the plaint has taken place or not? (ii) Whether the suit property mentioned and described in Schedule-I and Schedule-II of the plaint can be partitioned or not? 8. In the appeal, the respondent/plaintiff has examined five witnesses and also produced registered partition deed No. 303 of 1924, which was marked as Ext.-1. (ii) Whether the suit property mentioned and described in Schedule-I and Schedule-II of the plaint can be partitioned or not? 8. In the appeal, the respondent/plaintiff has examined five witnesses and also produced registered partition deed No. 303 of 1924, which was marked as Ext.-1. The appellate court has considered the evidence of P.W.3, who has produced Book No.1 volume No.8 containing page No. 207 to 222 which contains the partition deed No. 303 of 1924. The said partition deed was proved by P.W.3, which was marked as Ext.-1. P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence adduced before the court that a partition has taken place between Chandrika Jha and Lakshmi Kant Jha. P.W. 2 has stated in his evidence adduced before the court that two properties are left to be partitioned which are the pari (turn) at Deoghar Baba Temple and the property of west tola, whereas, Yajmanka has been previously partitioned. The appellate court has further taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.4, who is the son of Late Jhakhani Lal (dewan of Baba Temple till 1952), who has stated in paragraph 2 of his evidence that he knows that the plaintiff Dwarika Prasad Jha is the musharif of the temple and he has got his pari (turn) in the temple and Dwarika Prasad Jha has 19th day's pari (turn) in the temple and he has half share of 1/3rd share out of 2 Anna 8 Pie, whereas, the other half share of 1/3rd share belongs to the family of Lakshmi Kant Jha, which has been continuing since decades. The appellate court has also considered the evidence of P.W.5 and came to the finding that the defendants have failed to reveal the names of the respectable persons of the vicinity in whose presence the aforesaid partition had taken place and none of the persons, who were present at the time of the partition, have been examined by the defendants to prove that a previous partition with respect to Schedule-I and Schedule-II properties had taken place and on that basis the appellate court came to the finding that the defendants' claim of 1953 partition is not tenable. The appellate court has also come to the conclusion that the suit properties mentioned in Schedule-I and Schedule-II can be partitioned. The appellate court has also come to the conclusion that the suit properties mentioned in Schedule-I and Schedule-II can be partitioned. After going through all findings, the appellate court hold that judgment and decree passed by the court below does not require any interference and accordingly the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Deoghar was confirmed vide judgment dated 15.10.2015. Being aggrieved with this judgment, this Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants. 9. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. He further argues that both the courts below have failed to consider Schedule-I and Schedule-II of the suit properties. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court have discussed the entire facts including the evidence and documents and they have considered each aspects of the matter minutely and it has been discussed threadbare in both the judgments and two fact finding courts have already examined the facts in detail and come to the concurrent finding. This Court, while sitting in Second Appeal, is not inclined to discuss the evidence and documents which have already been adduced in the courts below. This Court further finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. 11. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court below.