JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2021 (decree signed on 03.01.2022) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chatra dismissing the Civil Appeal No.24 of 2018 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2018 (decree signed on 06.09.2018) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chatra in Original Suit No.04 of 2012. 3. Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Original (Title) Suit No.4 of 2012 was instituted by the appellant/ plaintiff for declaration of possession over the suit property and confirmation that if the plaintiff found dispossessed from the suit land and or any portion thereof during pendency of the suit then possession be restored through process of the court. He further submits that the sale-deed no.4667 dated 29.05.1982 executed by Murari Lal in favour of defendants as well as deed of partition bearing no.5223 dated 09.11.1968 registered before Assurance Kolkata be declared illegal, null and void. He submits that the cost of the suit was also prayed. He further submits that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chatra, by the judgment dated 23.08.2018 has been pleased to dismiss same and aggrieved with that, the appellant herein has preferred Civil Appeal No.24 of 2018 which has been dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chatra by the judgment dated 17.12.2021. 4. He submits that the law points with regard to adoption has not been correctly appreciated by both the learned courts and in view of that there is substantial question of law to admit the present second appeal and he submits that in view of that this second appeal may kindly be admitted on the point of law involved with regard to adoption. 5. The suit was instituted by the appellant/plaintiff herein and it transpires from the judgment of the learned trial court that in the plaint it was stated that the land appertaining to kha?a no.151, plot no 1249, area, 0.38 acres under Mouza Kishunpur Thana No. 185, PS. Chatra, District- Hazaribag, (now Chatra) þelonged to the joint ownership of Sawal Ram and Banshidhar Seth both sons of Hari Bux Seth resident of Marwari Mohalla Chara, PS. & Distt- Chatra. Chatra, District- Hazaribag, (now Chatra) þelonged to the joint ownership of Sawal Ram and Banshidhar Seth both sons of Hari Bux Seth resident of Marwari Mohalla Chara, PS. & Distt- Chatra. In the year of 1926 the said-Sawal-Ram died leaving behind his widow Ganga Devi and three daughters namely Chand Bai, Tara Bai and Kishori Bai, his brother Banshidhar Seth and Banshidhar Seth's wife namely Sheo Bai, who came in joint possession over the property left by said Sawal Ram as they governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Out of the said three daughters Chand Bai married with Gouri Shankar Maskara, resident of 49/28 Vidhan road Kolkata and the Tara Bai married with Shyam Sundar Sauganeria, resident of 12, Chappel Road, Kolkata much before the year of 1956 and thereafter both went to their sasural relinquishing their right, title and interest in the joint property in favour of their mother Ganga Devi and sister Kishori Bai later on the said Kishori Bai also married with one Matadin Agrawal but she along with her husband continued to live at Chatra with her mother Ganga Devi, the said Matadin Agrawal also used to part take in managing the joint property and all family affairs, but soon said Banshidhar Seth along with his wife and Ganga Devi along with her daughter separated their mess and residence. The said Banshidhar Seth gradually started to diminishing benefits of joint property to the Ganga Devi's family as such she went to Kolkata to reside there and she filed a Maintenance Suit bearing no. 1300/1954 against the said Banshidhar Seth in the Kolkata High Court. On the other hand, the said Kishori Devi along with husband Matadin Agrawal continued to reside at Chatra in possession aver the joint property. That it is pertinent to mention here that to enhance the award of maintenance and to claim share in the joint property in future, the name of one minor Murari Lal had been joined in the said maintenance suit by the said Ganga Devi as her adopted son along with her as plaintiff but she had never adopted the said Murari Lal as her son. During the pendency of that maintenance suit the said Banshidhar Seth; died leaving behind his widow Sheo Bai and an adopted son Panna Lal Agrawal who were substituted as defendant in that maintenance suit in place of Banshidhar Seth. During the pendency of that maintenance suit the said Banshidhar Seth; died leaving behind his widow Sheo Bai and an adopted son Panna Lal Agrawal who were substituted as defendant in that maintenance suit in place of Banshidhar Seth. On being strengthen the women right of inheritance and succession by the amendment of Hindu Succession Act 1956, the said Punna Lal and-Sheo Bai agreed with Ganga Bai to partition their joint properties and thereafter partition tookplace between them, a registered deed of which had been executed on 06.06.1966 in which the suit land along with others fell in the Share of Ganga Devi and Kishori Devi. Thereafter, Ganga Devi & Kishori Devi came in possession over their share in joint property. Further on 10.11.1966 Ganga Devi and Kishori Devi amicably partitioned their joint property, alloted in partitioned deed dated 06.06.1966 by metes and bound to settle their dispute if any in future and in token thereof an unregistered deed of partition had been signed by them in which Ganga Devi has represented her another two daughters namely Chand Bai and Tara Bai to take their shares but they relinquished their right and title in favour of Ganga Devi & Kishori Devi. In token thereof an affidavit bad also been sworn in by Ganga Devi. According to partition dated 10.11.1996 the aforesaid land under khata no. 151 (Suit land) along with others fell in the share of Kishori Devi who came in possession without any hindrance to the knowledge of whole world, including the defendants and remaining in continuous possession uninterruptedly acquired indefeasible right, title and interest over the same and later on after death of said Ganga Devi the property allotted to her share also devolved upon the said Kishori Devi. The said Kishori Devi, for her legal necessity sold an area of 0.12 acres of land out of total-area 0.38 acres of khata no. 151, plot no. 1249 under Mouza Kishunpur, Thana No. 185, PS. & Distt- Chatra by virtue of sale deed no.9889 dated 21.08.1980 in favour of the plaintiff for cash consideration of Rs. 2500/- and she put him in possession over the same, more fully described in schedule A which is the subject matter of this suit and which may be treated as part of this plaint. & Distt- Chatra by virtue of sale deed no.9889 dated 21.08.1980 in favour of the plaintiff for cash consideration of Rs. 2500/- and she put him in possession over the same, more fully described in schedule A which is the subject matter of this suit and which may be treated as part of this plaint. In the year of 1984 defendants started to make oral claim over the suit land on the basis of a fabricated document of registered sale deed bearing no. 4647 dated 29.05.1982 executed by Murari Lal as alleged adopted son of Ganga Devi and Sawal Ram in favour of Mohan Lal Khandelwal herein defendant no.1 and Sunita Devi wife of Bijay Kumar Khandelwal, herein defendant no.2, which is illegal, void and collusive document without consideration. Later on Sunita Devi died leaving behind her husband Bijay Kr. Khandelwal son Madhav Kr. Khandelwal, Keshav Kr Khandelwal, Govind Kr. Khandelwal and a daughter Rupa Kumari Khandelwal, herein impleaded as defendant no. 2 to 6. That before obtaining the above said registered sale deed by defendants, the said Murari Lal Sanganeria was set to claim the land of Kishori Devi in village Sibala, PS. Balumath, Distt- Palamu but his false assertion that he being adopted son of Ganga Devi was claiming their land was rejected in case no.108/1981 thereof. Defendants thereby are barred by the principal of estoppel from challenging the right, title and interest in the land of Kishori Devi succeeded from Ganga Devi as well as of the plaintiff. The defendants being influential persons of this locality, on 08.06.1984 openly threatened plaintiffs and other purchasers of the land of same khata and plot, to dispossess them from lands hence they filed a petition to the S.D.M, Chatra, who pleased to start a proceeding u/s 144 CrPC bearing Misc. Case no. 47/84 (Shankar Gope and Others versus Bhola Shankar Khandelwal and others) with respect of their purchased land including the suit land and later on the same converted u/s 145 Cr.PC., which was decided against the plaintiffs on 28.02.2000, which leads plaintiff to file this case. It is further submitted that defendants coming in collusion with revenue staffs and suppressing the process of "Aam Istehar" illegally obtained order of Mutation with respect of the suit land in their names on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 29.05.1982. It is further submitted that defendants coming in collusion with revenue staffs and suppressing the process of "Aam Istehar" illegally obtained order of Mutation with respect of the suit land in their names on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 29.05.1982. The above said deed of partition dated 06.06.1966 has been registered much late after the enforcement of effective amendment of Hindu Succession Act 1956 and that deed does not include the name of Kishori Devi daughter of Ganga Devi and Sawal Ram as party who had been coming in possession over the joint property as such it cannot deprive her from her right, title and interest in joint property. She had equal right and title with her mother. In property alloted on 06.06.1966 as one share in joint property, as such the deed of partition dated 06.06.1966 is not binding upon the Kishori Devi or her heirs or upon plaintiff, on the other hand, the deed of partition dated 10.11.1966, even being unregistered executed between Ganga Devi and Kishori Devi is a legal and valid document and the same is binding upon all concerned. The said Murari Lal @ Murari Lal Sanganaria succeeded in obtaining registration of another deed of partition bearing no.5233 dated 09.11.1968 between himself and Ganga Devi with respect of the land in share of Ganga Devi and Kishori Devi at the office of registrar of Assurance Kolkata, but the same is a fraudulent deed which is n?t binding upon Kishori Devi as well as plaintiff. The office of registration is also beyond jurisdiction, hence the deed registered therein is not valid document which does not derive any right and title to Murari Lal in joint property of Ganga Devi and Kishori Devi as such defendants have purchased the suit land along with other from them, wh? has no right, title & possession over the same consequently they have no case with regard to the suit land. The deed of conveyance. no. 4647.dated 29.05.1 982 executed by Murari Lal in favour of defendants is nothing but a consequence of an ill-emulation and wager took place in Khandelwal family of Chatra to gain over the property of Kishori Devi any how, by hook or crook, after failure attempt made by Biharilal Khandeiwal through a fraudulent obtained registered sale deed no. 2927 dt. no. 4647.dated 29.05.1 982 executed by Murari Lal in favour of defendants is nothing but a consequence of an ill-emulation and wager took place in Khandelwal family of Chatra to gain over the property of Kishori Devi any how, by hook or crook, after failure attempt made by Biharilal Khandeiwal through a fraudulent obtained registered sale deed no. 2927 dt. 06.08.71 executed by Matadin Agrawal, which did not act upon and thereafter defendants want to grab the same forcibly on the strength of forged documents and with the help of their influence and out of their long purse as they are the richest and influential person of this locality. The plaintiff was coming continuous possession over the suit land even after the impugned order dt. 28.02.2000 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate Sri R. Prasad in favour of defendants in Misc. Case No. 47/84 u/s 145 of Cr.PC. But on 20.12.2007 a title suit no. 19/97 (Jagat Sao vs. Bhola Shankar Khandelwal) had been decided in favour of defendants of this court thereafter day by day till now defendants have been threatening the plaintiffs to oust from the suit land. The cause of action arose on 08.06.1984 when the defendants firstly gave threatening to dispossess plaintiff from the suit land, on 28.02.2000 when the learned Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order in Misc. Case No. no.47/1984 u/s 145 CrPC. with respect of the suit land in favour of defendants and finally on20.12.2007, when the defendant no.1 and 2 came along with some antisocial elements, and again gave open threat to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and the same is continued day by day. That the suit land is valued at Rs.6000/- for pecuniary jurisdiction of court which comes under the jurisdiction of this court and an advalorum court fee of Rs.968/- has been paid. 6. From the judgment of the learned trial court, the case of the defendants transpires that suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession. The plaintiff has got no valid cause of action. The cause of action as shown in para 18 of the plaint is vague and imaginary. The suit is barred by law of estoppel, waiver acquiescence. The suit is hit under the provision of Specific Relief Act. The suit property described in Schedule-A is vague and no effective decree can be passed. The cause of action as shown in para 18 of the plaint is vague and imaginary. The suit is barred by law of estoppel, waiver acquiescence. The suit is hit under the provision of Specific Relief Act. The suit property described in Schedule-A is vague and no effective decree can be passed. The boundary of the suit land given in Schedule-A of the plaint is not correct and is, vague. The suit property has been grossly under valued, the present market value of the suit property can not be less than Rs.10 lacs (Rs.10,00,000/-) and is out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this learned court. The present suit is also barred by the provisions of Article 58 and 59 of the LIMITATION ACT 1963; the prescribed period of limitation to cancel the registered instrument is three years since the date of its registration or from the date of its knowledge. The defendants admitted the fact that Sawal Ram died in the year 1926 leaving behind his wife and three daughters. But denied the lact that on death of Savwal Ram his wife and daughters inherited he property of Sawal Ram. The defendants further admitted the fact that it is true that daughter of Sawal Ram namely Kishori Devi married with Matadin Agrawal and Tara Bai also married with Shyam Sunder Sanguneria, but whether Chand Bai was married with Gauri Shankar Maskara or not. The defendants in their written statement justified the deed of partition dated 06.06.1966 and 09.11.1968. On the same time the defendants denied partition dated 10.11.1966 as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint which is alleged to be entered between Ganga Devi and Kishori Devi. The defendants further denied the title and possession of the plaintiff and also his vendor namely Kishori Devi. Further defendants no. 1 to 6 denied from the fact that Chand Bai and Tara Bai relinquished their share in favour of the mother Ganga Devi and their sister Kishori Devi. Further the case of defendant is that one Seth Ladu Ram was Hindu governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law, died in the year 1914 leaving behind his two surviving sons namely Haribakash and Chaturbhuj, he seized and possessed several movable and immovable property in the District of Hazaribag, now Chatra. Further the case of defendant is that one Seth Ladu Ram was Hindu governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law, died in the year 1914 leaving behind his two surviving sons namely Haribakash and Chaturbhuj, he seized and possessed several movable and immovable property in the District of Hazaribag, now Chatra. Haribakash adopted Bansidhar as his son in the year of 1905 as such Chaturbhuj, Haribakash, Banshidhar, Sawal Ram constituted Hindu joint family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Sawal Ram married with Ganga Devi. Ganga Devi with consent of her husband Sawal Ram adopted Murari Lal. On death of Haribakash, Chaturbhuj and Sawal Ram, the said Ganga Devi with her minor adopted son Murari Lal instituted a Title Suit No.1300/1954 against Banshidhar Seth for declaration that she (Ganga Devi) is entitled to get maintenance out of joint family estate. During pendency of the suit no. 1300/54 Rai Saheb Banshidhar Seth died leaving his wife Sheo Bai and adopted son Panna al who was adopted with the consent of her husband Rai Saheh Banshidhar Seth. During the lifetime of Banshidhar Seth Preliminary decree in T.S. No.1300/S4 was passed oy the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and thereafter a report was called from pleader commissioner for joint income and on receipt of report Rai Saheb Banshidhar Seth had filed exception against the said report. Before matter relating to exception finally disposed of Rai Saheb Banshidhar Seth died and thereafter with the consent free from any coercion a registered Deed of partition was executed to the extent of half and half share and a memorandum of partition diving properties, including the land of Mouza Kishunpur, by metes and bound was prepared and duly signed and accepted by both the parties and since then lands of Mouza Kishunpur including other properties fallen to the share of Ganga Devi and Murari Lal and they were exclusive owner, or possessor of property. Thereafter, differences has arisen in between Ganga Devi and Murari Lal and they could not retain property jointly fallen to their share so vide registered Deed of partition dated 09.11.1968, both Ganga Devi and Murari Lal partitioned the property fallen to their share and in that land partition the village Kishunpur under khata no. 151 with other land fallen to the share of Murari Lal and as such Murari Lal became the absolute owner of the said property. 151 with other land fallen to the share of Murari Lal and as such Murari Lal became the absolute owner of the said property. His name was also mutated by the order of competent authority. Murari Lal by remaining several years in possession vide registered Sale deed no. S4647/1982 dt. 29.05.1982 on getting valuable consideration money sold entire suit plots along with other plots measuring an area of 2.90 acres to Mohanlal defendant no.1 and Sunita Devi husband of defendant no.2 Vijay Kumar Khandelwal and put them in possession. One of the purchasers of the sale deed namely Sunita Devi died and defendants no. 3 to 6 are sons and daughter of the deceased purchaser Sunita Devi. Defendant no. 3 Mahadev Kumar Khandelwal born with the wedlock of Sunita Devi and Vijay Kumar Khandelwal but he has been adopted through registered Deed of adoption by defendant no.1 namely Mohanlal Khandelwal. That after purchase defendants applied for mutation of their names in the office of Anchal Adhikari Chatra who after observing all the formalities required there under passed order mutation vide mutation case no. 82/83 in favour of defendants with regard to land in dispute along with other lands and issued correction slip and since then they are paying rent to the State and obtained Government rent receipts regularly. Thereafter, proceeding u/s 144 Cr.PC. was initiated being Misc. Case no.41/1984 was contested by Shankar Gope v/s Bhola Shankar Khandelwal & others for the land of khata no. 151 and others along with this suit land measuring an area of 0.40 acre and after hearing both parties the executive Magistrate R.Prasad declared possession of Bhola Shankar Kh?ndelwal and others, vide order dated 23.02.2000 and against this order no revision was preferred by First party as such the order passed by the executive, Magistrate was final and un-challenged. That a fact is that T.S. no.19/97 was brought by Jagat Sao and others with respect to the part of suit land and the learned Munsif finding right, title and possession of defendant dismissed the suit. Whereas the defendant no.7 namely Murari Lal @ Murarilal Agrawal @ Murarilal Sangeneria did not appear in the court even after duly summoned and publication of summon/notice in daily newspaper, as such the suit had proceeded ex-parte against him. 7. In the above terms, the learned trial court has framed 11 issues to decide the said suit. Whereas the defendant no.7 namely Murari Lal @ Murarilal Agrawal @ Murarilal Sangeneria did not appear in the court even after duly summoned and publication of summon/notice in daily newspaper, as such the suit had proceeded ex-parte against him. 7. In the above terms, the learned trial court has framed 11 issues to decide the said suit. So far as the issue no.9 is concerned, that was with regard to “whether Murari Lal is adopted son of Ganga Devi and the sale deed no.4647 dated 29.5.1988 executed by Murari Lal in favour of defendant is null and void or not? The learned court has appreciated the oral evidences being PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, and PW5 as well as defendant witnesses being DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW4 and the documentary evidences marked as Exhibits. In paragraph no.21 of the judgment the learned trial court has found that the plaintiff has not examined single witness which is fully concerned with the family of Ganga Devi and Murari Lal and Kishori Devi. Besides that, the plaintiff has filed Electoral Roll Exhibit 1/1 in which at sl.no.907 the name of Murari Lal Sangeneria son of Shyamsundar Sangeneria is mentioned but Electoral Roll is not a conclusive proof of the aforesaid fact that Murari Lal is the son of Shyamsundar Sangeneria. On the other hand, the defendants have produced the C.C of Partition Suit No.29 of 1944 dated 06.06.1996 exhibit-A and on perusal of that, the learned court has found that in the deed Ganga Devi wife of Sawal Ram and Murari Lal adopted son was first party and Smt. Sheo Bai widow of Bansidhar Seth and Panna Lal adopted son of said Banshidhar Seth were second party. From the recital of the said partition deed, it has been transpired that on 24.10.1944 the aforesaid Ganga Devi has adopted said Murli Lal as son into her and her husband said Sawal Ram, deceased on the authority given to her by her husband by the said Sawal Ram to adoption. The aforesaid Ganga Devi and her minor adopted son Murari Lal filed a suit bearing No.1300 of 1954 against Bansidhar Seth for maintenance out of joint family estate. A preliminary decree was passed on 24.02.1958. Bansidhar Seth died during the aforesaid suit and his wife Smt. Sheo Bai adopted son Panna Lal substituted. Lastly, both the parties amicably partitioned joint ancestral property. A preliminary decree was passed on 24.02.1958. Bansidhar Seth died during the aforesaid suit and his wife Smt. Sheo Bai adopted son Panna Lal substituted. Lastly, both the parties amicably partitioned joint ancestral property. PW1 has also admitted this fact in paragraph no.46 of the judgment of Calcutta High Court is right. The learned court has further found that Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla in his 21 st updated Edition at page 1291 onwards written that requirement of valid adoption under previous law- A wife could adopt a son to her husband, but she could not do so during her husband’s lifetime without his express consent. After his death, she could adopt a son to him, in certain parts of India, only if he had expressly authorized her to do so. In other parts of India, she could adopt without such authority. However, in no case could a wife or widow adopt a son to herself; the adoption had to be made to her husband. An adoption by a woman married or unmarried, of a son to herself was invalid and conferred no legal rights upon the persons adopted. A daughter could not be adopted by a male or female Hindu. The physical act of giving was a prime necessity of the ceremonial requirements relating to adoption. 8. Considering all these aspects as well as the judicial pronouncements and further considering the maintenance suit being Suit No.13 of 1954 in which the pleader commissioner was also appointed to make report and the said suit was decided on the basis of out of court settlement resulting Ganga Devi and bigoted son Murari Lal one side and widow of Bansidhar Seth adopted son Pannalal other side entered into a registered deed of partition. According the said partition itself, the properties including the suit land fallen in the share of Ganga Devi and Murari Lal the adopted son. Kishore Devi the vendor of plaintiff never made any objection or filed any case with respect to the said adoption. The deed of partition dated 6.6.1966 was a registered document and it is also admitted by the plaintiff therefor and it has been considered by the learned trial court that it is a valid piece of evidence which proves that Ganga Devi and Murari Lal become the owner having right, title and interest and possession over the suit land including the other lands. The learned court has further appreciated the rest of the documents as well as the evidence of PWs and DWs and has come to that finding and given the judgment and passed the judgment on 23.08.2018 dismissing the suit on contest. 9. Aggrieved with that, the appellant herein preferred Civil Appeal No.24 of 2018 which was decided by the judgment dated 17.12.2021. The learned first appellate court has further appreciated all the documents as well as the witnesses in deciding the said appeal and has further made the point nos.1 and 2 in paragraph no.32 to decide the said appeal. The learned appellate court has appreciated the fact that the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and he has stated in paragraph no.22 of his cross examination that he cannot say about the documents on the basis of which he is saying that death of Sawan Ram. In para 25 he further stated that he has not seen Ganga Devi and does not know the name of father of Kishore Devi. In para 27 he has stated that Sawal Ram was the husband of Kishore Devi and in paragraph no.28 he has stated that he has seen the document of Kishore Devi as share holder and has further stated in paragraph no.30 of cross examination that he has filed the documents of share holding of Kishori Devi. In para-47 he has stated that he has filed a case of section 145 Cr.PC against Bhola Shankar Khandelwal for the suit land in which the judgment came against him and he has not gone for revision against that judgment and in para-53 of cross examination it is stated that he has seen the rent receipt of the disputed land in the name of Kishore Devi but in para-54 he has further stated that up till now, there is no rent receipt of the suit land in the name after registration of the suit land. In para- 56 further he has stated that the rent receipt is issued in whose name he cannot say. In para-57 he has further stated that he has filed a mutation case after the registered deed of disputed land in the year 1986 but it has not been filed in this case either carbon copy or certified copy of the mutation case. In para-57 he has further stated that he has filed a mutation case after the registered deed of disputed land in the year 1986 but it has not been filed in this case either carbon copy or certified copy of the mutation case. PW2 Sukhdeo Gope said in para 12 of his cross examination that it is stated that the paper of his examination in chief has been made by the son of Shanker Gope and he has only put his signature. In para 20 he has stated he has not seen any document of Kishore Devi of the disputed land. PW3 Prakash Pandey also said in para 14 that he has not seen any document in the name of Kishore Devi of the disputed land. In para 23 he stated that he has heard of the fact that Mohan Lal Khandelwal had land in Kishunpur Mauza. In para 29 and 30 of his cross examination he has said that he had not seen any document of the disputed land in the name of Shanker Gope or Kishori Devi. The learned appellate court has further appreciated the other PWs statement and in para 34 of the judgment of the learned appellate court it has been discussed that at the time of death of Sawal Ram in 1986 the disputed land having khata no.151 plot no.1249 area 38 decimals and other under mauza Kishunpur was in joint possession of Sawal Ram and Bansdhidhar Seth. At that time neither Hindu Women’s Right and Maintenance Act 1937 nor Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was in force and the widow has no right in coparcenary property rather after death of Sawal in 1926 by rule of survivorship the ownership of the disputed land went in favour of Bansidhar Saw, the brother of Sawal Ram. The Maintenance Suit bearing no.13 of 1954 was filed by Ganga Devi along with her adopted son was further discussed as has been discussed by the learned trial court and considering all these aspects, the learned first appellate court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his case and has been pleased to dismiss the same. There are concurrent findings of both the learned courts and there is no perversity so far as the facts of the case is concerned. 10. There are concurrent findings of both the learned courts and there is no perversity so far as the facts of the case is concerned. 10. The law points tried to be made out for admission of the present second appeal has been discussed with reason by both the learned courts and in the second appeal the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the facts and the facts remains that there are concurrent finding of both the learned courts. Considering that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal, hence, this second appeal being Second Appeal No.31 of 2022 is dismissed. 11. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.