JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against and being dissatisfied of the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No.32 of 2004 affirming the judgment dated 29.01.2004 and the decree dated 09.02.2004 passed by learned Sub Judge –III, Hazaribagh in Partition Suit No.86 of 1995. 3. The Partition Suit No.86 of 1995 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondents for a decree for partition with respect of suit land described in scheduled “B” of the plaint and separate khata to carve out to each of the plaintiffs and defendants. On contest the learned court has decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for ½ share in the scheduled “B” land of the plaint and there is unity of title and possession in between the parties in respect of the suit land and the plaintiffs were entitled for decree for partition and that is why the decree was prepared. 4. Aggrieved with that, the appellant/defendants filed the Title Appeal No.32 of 2004 and by the judgment dated 29.1.2004 the learned appellate court has been pleased to affirm the judgment and the decree of the learned trial court and has been pleased to dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with that, the appellant/defendants have filed the present second appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is no unity of title and possession and the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have erred in holding that there is unity between the parties. He further submits that there was no earlier partition and the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have further erred in law and the finding of that earlier partition is erroneous by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court. On these grounds, he submits that there is substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and it may kindly be admitted. 6. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents in the lower court is that both parties are agnets and their relationships will be clear from the genealogical table given at the foot of the plaint. On these grounds, he submits that there is substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and it may kindly be admitted. 6. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents in the lower court is that both parties are agnets and their relationships will be clear from the genealogical table given at the foot of the plaint. The lands of khata no.26 of Baitha Toli, Barlong, P.S. Ramgarh district Hazaribag were recorded in the names of late Jibha Mahto and Langra Mahto, sons of late Bikram Mehto in the survey record of rights and it was the joint property of both the parties. Lands of khata no. 17 of village-Barlong (Baitha toli) P.S. Ramgarh district Hazaribag were recorded in the names of late Gondal Mahto son of late Bikram Mahto, who died issueless after the last cadastral survey and settlement operation. These lands are also the joint property of the both parties. The parties are coming in peacefully possession over the lands of khata no.17 and 26 and they have been paying rents to the State government. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that after Deepawali in the year 1995 when the plaintiffs went to harvest paddy crops from the lands, the defendants created disturbance and they wanted to harvest the paddy crops. Cause of action arose in the month of October, 1995 when the defendants wanted to harvest paddy crops forcibly from the suit lands The suit has been valued at above Rs.50000/- but the suit being partition suit a court fee of Rs.39.00 has been paid. The plaintiffs claim for half share and it has been prayed that their share be carved out by Takhtabandi by appointing a pleader commissioner. 7. On the other hand, the case of the defendants/appellants is that the suit, as framed is not maintainable. The suit is barred by law of limitation, estoppel and acquiescence. The suit is also barred by nonjoinder of necessary party. There is no cause of action and the value of suit as given by the plaintiff is also not sufficient. It has further been alleged that the genealogy as given by the plaintiffs is not complete. It is the specific case of the defendants that it is true that the lands of khata no.26 was recorded in the names of Jibha Mahto and Langra Mahto but the same was not the joint property of the parties. It has further been alleged that the genealogy as given by the plaintiffs is not complete. It is the specific case of the defendants that it is true that the lands of khata no.26 was recorded in the names of Jibha Mahto and Langra Mahto but the same was not the joint property of the parties. As a matter of fact Jibha Mahto and Langra Mahto were separated and they had partitioned the lands of khata no. 26 and they were in separate possession over the lands of khata no.26. It is the further case of the defendants that some lands which were recorded in joint name were also partitioned later on and they were in peaceful possession over their lands. The defendants have admitted that the land of khata no.17 was recorded in the name of Gondal Mahto and he died issueless, as the plaintiff has made their case. But after the death of Gondal Mahto, his two brothers Jibhra Mahto and Langra Mahto inherited the lands of khata no.17 and later on they partitioned the lands of khata no.17 and they were separately in possession over their share of the land of khata no.17 along with the lands of khata no. 26 and the heirs of Jibha Mahto and Langra Mahto sold their share of the lands of khata no.17 and 26. Therefore, question does not arise to partition the land of khata no.17 and 26 as the plaintiffs claimed and the suit in fit to be dismissed. 8. In view of the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and finds that the learned appellate court has taken note of the evidence of defendant no.3-Fulchand Mahto that somebody has got more land recorded in their favour while somebody has got less than the recorded in their name and considering that evidence the learned appellate court has concluded that the parties are not having equal share of the land. The rent receipts are being issued jointly. They are unable to show that actually when the partition has taken place and apart from that, it is admitted case of the defendants that there are oral partition. Oral partition is no partition and so there was no partition by metes and bounds. The rent receipts are being issued jointly. They are unable to show that actually when the partition has taken place and apart from that, it is admitted case of the defendants that there are oral partition. Oral partition is no partition and so there was no partition by metes and bounds. The defendant no.3 and 4 have also were unable to say that when the partition took place between the parties and both the parties have filed the rent receipts and the rent receipts are in the name of Jibha Mahto and Lagra Mahto khata no.17 rent receipts are in the name of Gondal Mahto. These rent receipts are of the year 1995 and 2000 and considering all these documents the learned appellate court has come to the conclusion that there was no partition by metes and bounds. The parties are joint and there is unity of title and unity of possession and thereafter the learned appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 9. There are concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the learned courts, recorded by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court. The said findings were on appreciation of entire evidence on record. Therefore unless concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts found to be perverse, the same are not required to be interfered by the High Court in exercise of power under section 100 C.P.C. In that view of the matter, no interference is made out. 10. Accordingly, Second Appeal No.127 of 2009 is dismissed. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has filed the I.A. being I.A. No.8830 of 2019 for bringing on record additional evidence. 12. It is well settled that unless the second appeal is admitted on the law points, the said I.A. cannot be allowed as filed without admission and it is the discretion of the Court to consider the additional evidence at the time of final hearing of the second appeal. In the case in hand, no law point is involved. Thus, the said I.A. is also not allowed by the Court and accordingly dismissed. 13. Pending petition if any also stands dismissed.