JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2009 (decree signed on 23.11.2009) passed by the learned District Judge, Godda in Civil (Title) Appeal No.21 of 2000 affirming the judgment dated 29.06.2000 (decree signed on 13.07.2000) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Godda in Title (Partition) Suit No.29 of 1998. 3. Title (Partition) Suit No.29 of 1998 was instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs in which they have claimed 4/5 share in the suit property, which was dismissed on contest with cost vide judgment dated 29.06.2000. Being aggrieved with that judgment, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed Civil (Title) Appeal No.21 of 2000 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.10.2009 affirming the judgment passed by the learned trial court and, thereafter, this second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. 4. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted Title (Partition) Suit No.29 of 1998 alleging therein that they are the descendants of one common ancestors Ashique Mandal. Ashique Mandal had two sons, Gudri Mandal and Badri Mandal. The suit Khata was recorded in the name of Gudri Mandal and Badri Mandal, but their respective separate possession was recorded in the remarks column of the record of rights. The suit lands are the lands exclusively shown in possession of Badri Mandal. According to the plaintiffs, Gudri Mandal had five daughters namely Madni, Ashni, Sadni, Nazinan and Lukho. The plaintiffs claimed to be the descendants of Madni, Sadni, Nizinan and Lukho and the defendants 1st party were the descendants of Ashi Mandal. The respondent 2nd party are the descendants of Badri Mandal, whose land has not been included in the suit. After the death of Gudri Mandal, the plaintiffs being his heirs succeeded to the suit property and were in possession of the same. Subsequently, they felt difficulty in enjoyment of the usufruct of the suit land and, therefore, the said suit was filed. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs and defendants are muslims and they are governed by the Hanafi School of Mohammdan Law. The plaintiffs though since last one year prior to institution of the suit requested for partition, but the defendants avoided the same on same pretext or other and have finally refused to make partition of the suit in May, 1996. 5. The defendants 1st party appeared but did not contest the suit. The plaintiffs though since last one year prior to institution of the suit requested for partition, but the defendants avoided the same on same pretext or other and have finally refused to make partition of the suit in May, 1996. 5. The defendants 1st party appeared but did not contest the suit. The respondents 2nd party, who were the proforma defendants in the suit filed a written statement and contested the suit. According to the respondent 2nd party-proforma defendants Gudri Mandal died in the year 1948. Gudri Mandal was survived by his younger brother Badri Mandal as his nearest residuary heir. Gudri Mandal had no son and his brother Badri Mandal inherited all his property. The respondents 2nd party-proforma defendants are the heirs of Badri Mandal and are in possession over the suit land. After the death of Gudri Mandal, the respondents 2nd party-Proforma defendants, performed chalisa of Gudri Mandal in the house in which the plaintiffs and the defendants 1st party had taken part. None of the 5 daughters of Gudri Mandal survived as they all died during the life time of Gudri Mandal. The son and grand son of Bibi Madni never inherited the suit land. Bibi Madni, was married in Rampur, P.S. Dhoraiya, Dist. Banka. Bibi Madni had a son namely Yakub, who died leaving a son Mahboob, the plaintiffs no.1 and a daughter who is married in Dhapra to Sk. Maramat and she is still alive so it was pleaded that the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. Similarly, several other daughters, who are the descendants of Gudri Mandal having not been made party in the suit. The plaintiffs and defendants 1st party by swearing an affidavit before A.S.O., Naraini admitted that Bibi Lekho died before Sk. Gudri Mandal during the chalisa of Gudri Mandal in the year 1948. Some of the plaintiffs demanded their legal shares in their maternal grand father's property in presence of villagers of Lougain but the same was denied to them by Badri Mandal, so it was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no title to the suit land. Gudri Mandal during the chalisa of Gudri Mandal in the year 1948. Some of the plaintiffs demanded their legal shares in their maternal grand father's property in presence of villagers of Lougain but the same was denied to them by Badri Mandal, so it was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no title to the suit land. Alternatively, it was pleaded that since the said occurrence of denial of share to them by Badri Mandal, the plaintiffs during 40 years did not claim the suit land and in the meanwhile several 12 years having been passed, the respondent-2nd party-proforma defendants have acquired title by adverse possession and the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs were not concerned with the suit land. The respondent 2nd party-proforma defendants have also pleaded absence of any cause of action for the suit on the part of the plaintiffs. 6. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have failed to consider that Gudri Mandal was having five daughters and after his death, they have predeceased him and that fact has been wrongly decided by the learned trial court as well as appellate court and in view of that there is substantial question of law which can be framed and this appeal may kindly be admitted. 7. In view of the above pleadings, the learned trial court has framed the issues to decide the suit. While deciding issue nos. (iv) and (v), which were the main issues, the learned trial court has considered the evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as documentary evidence and has come to the finding that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that both the parties are in joint possession of the suit property so there is neither unity of title and possession over the suit land nor the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of partition and suit has been decided against the plaintiffs and accordingly the suit was dismissed. The learned appellate court has framed points while deciding the appeal. The learned appellate court has framed points while deciding the appeal. The learned appellate court has considered the arguments of the appellants/plaintiffs with regard to failure on the part of the learned trial court of not considering the oral evidence in the record in its right perspective and has considered that during the hearing of arguments of the appeal the appellants/plaintiffs could not cite any specific evidence of any specific witness, which has not been properly considered by the learned trial court. No specific denial suggestion was given to the witnesses of the defendant who have stated that the daughters of Gudri predeceased him. P.W. 2 has stated that he has deposed only hearsay matters and he can not even say from whom he has heard as to what he deposed in court. P.W.3 has stated that the landed property of Gudri Mandal and Badri Mandal are in jointness and he can not say how much land is being cultivated by the sons of Badri Mandal. Indicating thereby that the entire lands of Gudri and Badri have not been partitioned which is not exactly the case of the plaintiffs. Similarly P.W.4 has stated that the sons of Badri are not desirous of giving any shares to the daughters of Gudri, which also do not support the case of the plaintiffs. Considering that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the unity of title and possession and in that view of the matter, the learned appellate court has dismissed the title appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. There is concurrent finding of two fact finding courts. No adversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants and sitting under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure when there is no perversity in the law point involved, this second appeal cannot be admitted. 8. Accordingly, this second appeal stands dismissed. 9. Pending I.A., if any, also stands dismissed.