ORDER : ORDER IN APPEAL: 1. Present appellants, who are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1999, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 7th October 2016 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2012 dismissing the said appeal preferred by the present appellants confirming the judgment and decree dated 9th May 2012 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Keshod in Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1999. 2. Short facts of this case may be referred as under: That, the original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1999 for partition and mesne profit of the agricultural land situated in the sim of village Ajab, Taluka: Keshod, District: Junagadh. As per the averments made in the suit by the plaintiff, in all 16 acres 6 gunthas of land situated in the sim of village Ajab was an ancestral property and they are coparceners of the said property, which is particularly described in the plaint. That in all, there were four pieces of the land. As per say of the plaintiff, each of the party have equal share ie., 1/6th share in the disputed property and the defendants are in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs prayed their share as well as mesne profit. On a request made by the plaintiffs, it was denied by the defendants to hand over their shares in the suit property, and therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit for the aforesaid prayer of partition and mesne profit etc. 3. On receiving summons issued by the lower court, the defendants filed their written statement vide Ex. 13 contending that the father of the defendants and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 ie., Bhimabhai Daki was murdered and in a litigation, huge amount was spent and they were in debt, and therefore, all the plaintiffs handed over the property to the defendants and defendants agreed to pay the entire debt of the disputed property. It was further contended that the plaintiffs did not want to cultivate the suit property, and therefore, the possession of the disputed property was handed over to the defendants. That, they have already paid debt of their father Bhimabhai Daki. The plaintiffs suppressed the material facts and have not come before the Court with clean hands. It was further contended that the plaintiffs did not want to cultivate the suit property, and therefore, the possession of the disputed property was handed over to the defendants. That, they have already paid debt of their father Bhimabhai Daki. The plaintiffs suppressed the material facts and have not come before the Court with clean hands. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed issues vide Ex. 14 and recorded the evidence of the parties. After hearing the arguments of all the parties, learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Keshod was pleased to decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on 30th October 2002. The defendants, being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2002 before the learned District Court, Junagadh, which was decided on 17th February 2011 and matter was remanded back to the trial Court with certain directions. The trial Court, again, recorded the evidence of the parties and by judgment and decree dated 9th May 2012, Regular Civil Suit No. 144 of 1999 was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Again, the defendants, being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 9th May 2012, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2012 before the court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Junagadh. Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Junagadh, vide judgment and decree dated 7th October 2016, dismissed the said appeal preferred by the present appellants and confirmed the preliminary judgment and decree dated 9th May 2012 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Keshod in Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1999. 4. By way of this appeal, the present appellants challenged the said judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh dismissing their appeal ie., Regular Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2012. 5. Heard learned advocate for the appellants. 6. As concurrent findings of the lower court as well as the first appellate Court are passed in Second Appeal preferred by the present appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there must be some substantial questions of law which would require to be considered by the High Court. 7. Following substantial questions of law are suggested by the present appellants. 7. Following substantial questions of law are suggested by the present appellants. (i) Whether the daughters were entitled to file a suit for partition as plaintiffs before the amendment came into force w.e.f. 2005 in Hindu Succession Act 1955? (ii) So far as Survey No. 32 out of the disputed properties is concerned, whether the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by the principle of resjudicata? (iii) Whether the plaintiff no.4 was estopped from filing a suit for partition and having declaration of his one sixth share in the disputed property? (iv) Whether the issues framed by the Ld. Appellate Judge are in violation of the principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Apex Court of India? (v) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is bad on the principles of delay and latches? (vi) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by the law of limitation? (vii) Whether RCS No. 114 of 1999 was liable to be stayed being a subsequent suit, under the provisions of Sec. 10 of CPC? 8. As there are concurrent findings of the trial Courts both, with the consent of the learned advocate for the appellants, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. 9. Learned advocate for the appellants has produced the paper book of the documents produced before the trial Court for consideration of this Court. 10. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the court below has not considered the evidence as well as record in proper way. That, the respondent no.4- Hardas Bhimabhai Daki filed Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1999 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Keshod for partition in land bearing survey no. 32 and as per his prayer, he was entitled to one half share in the suit property. While in the present appeal, survey no. 32 is also included. That, the respondent no.4- Hardas Bhimabhai Daki had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1999 for 50% share and at the same time, he alongwith three other plaintiffs filed said suit and prayed for 1/6th share in the suit property along with other properties, more particularly, mentioned in the plaint of Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1999. That, the respondent no.4- Hardas Bhimabhai Daki had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1999 for 50% share and at the same time, he alongwith three other plaintiffs filed said suit and prayed for 1/6th share in the suit property along with other properties, more particularly, mentioned in the plaint of Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1999. The Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1999 came to be decreed in favour of the respondent no.4 vide judgment and decree dated 19th April 2005 by the trial Court. As the said judgment was challenged by the defendants in Regular Civil Appeal No. 85/2005 before the District Court. That, the said appeal was allowed and matter was remanded back to the trial Court with certain directions. That, the said suit is pending before the court of learned Civil Judge, Keshod. It was further submitted that subsequent suit, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1999 was to be stayed by the court under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the subject matter of both the suit was common and the same. That, trial Court has committed grave error in not staying the subsequent suit. That, two different decrees were passed by the trial Court for the subject matter of survey no.32 is concerned. That, this aspect was never considered by the Court below in its true perspective, which has ended in miscarriage of justice. That, the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by the principle of estoppel, because the plaintiff no. 4 Hardas had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1999 for 50% share in the survey no. 32. That, the daughters were not entitled to file suit for partition. That, as per the record, it was proved by the defendants that the defendant no.1 Lakhman has already paid the debt of his father and the plaintiffs have not given any share for clearing the debt. That, both the Courts have erred in holding that no documentary or oral evidence was produced in this regard. That, the first appellate Court has not framed the issues in appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as required under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his arguments, learned advocate has relied in the case of 2014(16) SCC page no. 109 and in case of 2010(2) GLH 551 . That, the first appellate Court has not framed the issues in appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as required under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his arguments, learned advocate has relied in the case of 2014(16) SCC page no. 109 and in case of 2010(2) GLH 551 . Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellants to quash and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2012 dismissing appeal preferred by the present appellants. 11. Perusing the record produced before this Court by the appellants and submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants, it appears that the plaintiffs have claimed equal 1/6th share in the disputed property. The defendants were in possession of the disputed property as said by the plaintiffs. It is admitted by the defendants in their written statement Ex. 13 that the father of the defendants and plaintiffs no.2 to 4 ie., Bhima Daki was murdered and in that litigation, huge amount was spent and they were in debt, and therefore, all the plaintiffs handed over the property to the defendants and defendants were agreed to pay entire debt of the disputed property. It was also admitted by the defendants in their written statement that at that time, the plaintiffs also informed that they do not want to cultivate the said property and thereby, handed over the possession of the disputed land to the defendants. Since then, more than 20 years, defendants were in possession of the disputed property as they have paid the debt of their father ie., Bhima Daki. It is undisputed fact that the suit property was of ancestral property and was entered in the joint names of the respective parties in the revenue record. The parties who were the legal heirs of the deceased Bhima Punja Daki. If we consider the evidence produced before the trial court, then if any debt was there in the family on account of murder of father of the deceased namely Bhima Punja and due to weak financial condition, the possession of the disputed property was handed over to the defendants by the plaintiff then also it can never be said that plaintiffs have relinquished their rights or waived their rights from the disputed property. It may be said that defendant no.1, being a karta of the family, possession of the disputed property was handed over to him, but the plaintiffs have never relinquished their rights from the disputed property. There was no evidence produced on record by the defendants that marriage expenses of their younger brother and sister was borne by the defendants or any cash amount or ornaments were given by the defendants. If we consider the documents produced on record vide Ex.44 and 45, there was a debt of Rs. 36,850/- on the name of Lakhman Bhima Daki but, there was no evidence available before the trial Court about any debt against the father of the defendants. The defendants have admitted that straightway six persons are the first heirs of deceased Bhima Punja. They have not denied that plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the disputed property. It appears that trial Court has rightly decided the suit filed by the plaintiffs granting 1/6th share to each of the parties. From the discussion and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court, mesne profit was also allowed in favour of the plaintiff since 1999. The findings arrived at by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court can never be said to be perverse or illegal, as they are passed on factual aspects only. 12. The findings of the trial Court in respect of share of the plaintiff in the disputed property, debt of the father of the defendants, marriage expenses of the younger brother and/or sisters incurred by them, cultivating the land by the defendants, share of the plaintiff in the disputed property as admitted by them in the written statement cannot be questioned in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. The question of law suggested by the appellants are therefore, answered against the present appellants as there is no substantial questions of law are found in the appeal. 13. The question of law suggested by the appellants are therefore, answered against the present appellants as there is no substantial questions of law are found in the appeal. As the another suit was filed by Shri Hardas Bhimabhai Daki, being Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1999 and was decreed, wherein one half share was given to the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit in survey no.32 paiki of village Ajab and the dispute is still pending before the trial Court, the said dispute would require to be decided by the trial Courts considering the facts of the case that the said plaintiff is also respondent no.4 in the present appeal and was also one of the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 1999 who is granted 1/6th share in the said property. 14. With this observation, this appeal is hereby dismissed and accordingly stands disposed of. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION: 15. In view of the order passed in the main matter, present application does not survive and accordingly stands disposed.