JUDGMENT : 1. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant who has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment in Title (Partition) Appeal No. 2/2013 whereby and whereunder, the judgment and decree of partition in Title (Partition) Suit No. 28/2008 was affirmed. 2. The plaintiffs filed partition suit with respect to Schedule-I and Schedule-II of suit property for half share of each plaintiff and for permanent injunction. 3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit land was recorded in the name of Kalipadi Mochi, Bhakti Mochi , Ganpati Mochi S/o. Gour Mochi and Gopal Mochi, Nepal Mochi S/o. Wakil Mochi as per the genealogical table given in Page-10 of the plaint. The suit property was earlier partitioned between the parties on the basis of which a Bantanama was prepared for their right of occupancy. Both the suit lands were partitioned as per Bantanama on 08.07.2001 and the suit land was partition by metes and bound. But the defendant No. 1 without following the Bantanama has been forcibly occupying the share of plaintiff and had cut away 150 bamboos and 2 kathal trees. 4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their separate written statement while Defendant No. 3 was transposed from plaintiff as Defendant No. 3. It is the case of defendant no. 1 that the plaintiffs have filed the suit only for two plots separate genealogical table has been filed by this defendant. As per the Defendant’s case Kalipadi Mochi was in exclusive possession of the suit land as per the remark column of the record of right who died issueless so his property devolved on the other co-sharer as per the genealogical table detailed in the written statement. Further Bhagwati Mochi died before his marriage and property was inherited by his own brother Ganpati Mochi. The suit property was transferred through an unregistered sale deed to one Khodawar Hussain, who sold land to the defendant no. 1 by registered sale deed bearing No. 3155 dated 05.09.1995 and defendant no. 1 came in the exclusive owner of the land. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the main issue framed was Issue No. II – Whether the plaintiff entitled to get decree of the partition by metes and bound regarding suit land? 6. The trial court held that plaintiffs were entitled to get the decree and partition for their half share of the suit land. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the main issue framed was Issue No. II – Whether the plaintiff entitled to get decree of the partition by metes and bound regarding suit land? 6. The trial court held that plaintiffs were entitled to get the decree and partition for their half share of the suit land. It held that the suit land of Plot Nos. 56 and 59 were mentioned in the name in Khatiyan Jamabandi 218/14 (Exhibit-2) which has been jointly recorded in the name Kalipado Mochi, Bhakti Mochi and Ganpati Mochi S/o of Gour Mochi and Gopal Mochi, Nepal Mochi S/o Wakil Mochi which showed that plaintiffs were the co-sharer of the suit land. Contrary to the plea of the defendants taken in the written statement nowhere in the Record of Right Ext.-2 it is mentioned that it was in exclusive possession of Kalipado Mochi. From Exhibit-1 (Bantanama) it became clear that land was still joint and it was never partitioned. The transfer of land of Plot No. 56 by unregistered deed (Exhibit-E) has been rightly held to have not transferred any valid title. 7. The learned Court of appeal has concurred with the finding on material Issue No. II with the finding of the trial court. It was noted that defendant has failed to produce any documents in support of their averment made in Paragraph-10 of written statement that entire suit land was possession of Kalipado Mochi. 8. Both the learned courts below have returned a concurrent finding of facts that there was status of jointness and the plaintiff were entitled to decree of partition. I do not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal for hearing. As such judgment and decree passed by the court below is affirmed. 9. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit without cost, but has not assigned reason for not allowing cost which is against the express mandate of Section 35(2) of the Code. The Courts are required to award cost as per specific provision under Section 35. The general rule under Section 35(2) of the Code is that costs shall follow the event unless for good reason the Court holds otherwise. The appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission with cost. Consequently, I.A. Nos. 2513/2015, 5216/2017 and 10967/2018 stand disposed of.