JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.07.2024 and decree signed on 02.08.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2022 by learned District Judge-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 29.08.2022 and decree signed on 08.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No.44 of 2017 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 3. Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the suit was decreed holding that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get one third share in the suit property. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, for admission of the second appeal, only point has argued that the entire property was not the subject matter in the partition suit. 5. Respondents/plaintiffs instituted the Original Suit No.44 of 2017 for preliminary decree declaring for 1/3 rd share of the plaintiff over the suit property described in Schedule A and for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner to demarcate 1/3 rd share of the plaintiff over the suit property and for final decree in terms of report of the survey knowing pleader commissioner and cost of the suit and the learned trial court appreciating the evidence oral as well as the documentary and decided the said suit by judgment dated 29 th August, 2022 after framing of seven issues and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get one third share in the suit property and aggrieved with that appellant/defendant moved before the appellate court in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2022 which was dismissed by the judgment dated 22 nd July, 2024 affirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 6. It transpires from the judgment of learned Courts that the case of the plaintiff is that Ram Awtar, the father of plaintiff (Babu Nandan Sah), defendant No.1 (Shyam Sunder Saw) & defendant No. 2 (Kaishalya Debi), was an employee in Tata Steel Ltd. (Proforma Def. No. 4) in Canteen Service having Ticket No. 144958 & Personal No. 27345. Proforma Def. No. 4 allotted land bearing Holding No. E/406, A-Block, Sonari Area, Jamshedpur East, Area 30' X 40' on monthly rent for residential purpose which was affirmed by the proforma defendant by Letter No. LAND/CONV/2065 dt. 16.02.2009. No. 4) in Canteen Service having Ticket No. 144958 & Personal No. 27345. Proforma Def. No. 4 allotted land bearing Holding No. E/406, A-Block, Sonari Area, Jamshedpur East, Area 30' X 40' on monthly rent for residential purpose which was affirmed by the proforma defendant by Letter No. LAND/CONV/2065 dt. 16.02.2009. Ram Awtar constructed a residential house (hereinafter mentioned as suit house) on that land and started living with his family members. Ram Awtar died on 08.12.1973 leaving behind his widow Smt. Moti Devi, two sons Shyam Sundar Saw & Babu Nandan Sah and one daughter Kaishalya Debi. Their mother Moti Devi also died on 21.02.2000. The parties are Hindu and governed by HINDU SUCCESSION ACT . No partition of the suit house has taken place. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 & 2 are entitled for their 1/3rd share each in suit house. Plaintiff requested defendant No.1 & 2 to file proper joint application before Proforma defendant No. 4 for mutation of name, but they were avoiding. Plaintiff requested defendant No.1 & 2 to make partition, but they refined on 12.12.2016. The relief claimed for a preliminary decree of partition in the suit house and allotment of 1/3rd share therein, thereafter a Final Decree by appointment of a Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, cost of the suit and any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be found entitled. SCHEDULE 'A' A Residential House standing on land measuring an area 30 ft x 40 ft. bearing Holding No. E/406, A Block, Sonari, PO & PS- Sonari, Jamshedpur, Distt. Singhbhum East, Jharkhand, bounded as follows: North : E/405, house of Ramesh Kumar Sharma, South : E/407, House of U. Roy, East : Road, West : Alley. SCHEDULE 'B' 7 . The case of the defendant is that after receiving summons, all the three defendants appeared, but the proforma defendant No. 3 did not file any Written Statement on his behalf and vide order dated 06.06.2018 he was debarred from filing W.S. Defendant No.2 though has filed her separate Written Statement, but she has admitted the entire case of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 filed his separate Written Statement contesting the suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. The suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and Specific Relief Act. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Defendant No. 1 filed his separate Written Statement contesting the suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. The suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and Specific Relief Act. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The State of Jharkhand being the owner of the property was a necessary party to the suit. The description of suit house is vague. It is further pleaded that the house was a Khapraposh Kuchha construction and after death of father the plaintiff has taken all his retirement money from his mother in lieu of share in the suit holding saying that he would be settled in Delhi and he has no interest in the dilapidated house. He left Jamshedpur permanently in the year 1992 for Delhi. It is also pleaded that he discussed with the plaintiff for pucca construction and modification etc. upon which the plaintiff gave his consent to construct pucca house and modify the dilapidated kuccha house but from his own cost because he has no interest in the house. Hence, he has modified bearing huge expense from his own pocket and started living with his family without any objection from anyone. He is regularly paying rent since 1993-1994 and is expending huge money more or less twenty-five lakhs for maintenance, repairing, modification, renovation, white washing etc. from his own pocket. It is also pleaded that all the movable and immovable properties situated at the native village Amlori, District Siwan, Bihar as well as house situated at R, Z-126, Gali No.4, C2, C2 Block, Shivpuri, Near Nanda Block, Mahabir Enclave, New Delhi-48 purchased from joint fund of the deceased father might be partitioned. The plaintiff is also liable for the liabilities. The plaintiff with ulterior motive and dishonest intention only asking for partition in the suit house after concealing all the real truth and without payment of all his liabilities. He also concealed that all the ancestral and joint family properties, movable & immovable situated at village Amlori, Bihar & Delhi are still joint and the plaintiff is only asking partition of present holding which is not a raiyati land but the actual Landlord is State of Jharkhand and proforma defendant is a lessee who allotted the suit land on monthly tenancy which cannot be partitioned. The plaintiff has no valid cause of action for this suit. 8. The plaintiff has no valid cause of action for this suit. 8. The learned trial court appreciated the oral evidence of the PW – 1, 2 and 3 as well as DW – 1 and 2 as well as the documentary evidence. Issue No.5, 6 and 7 was with regard unity of title and possession between the parties and with regard to the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint and entitlement to get the preliminary decree for partition, if so, to what extent and about the relief. Appreciating all these facts, the learned Trial Court has found that it is the admitted fact between the parties that the land area measuring 30 ft. X 40 ft. bearing Holding no. E/406, A Block, Sonari, PO and PS-Sonari, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum was allotted to the Ramawatar (Since deceased), father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 & 2. It was also admitted that after allotment of the said land Ram Awtar has constructed Khapraposh kacha construction. It was also admitted that father Ramawtar died on 08.12.1973 and mother Smt. Moti devi died on 21.02.2000 leaving behind plaintiff and defendant No.1 & 2. The genealogical table which is described in schedule B of the plaint was also admitted and in view of that the admitted facts has already been proved. With regard to unity of title and possession between the parties the learned trial Court has further appreciated the allotment by the Tata Steel which was marked as Exhibit 1, which was in favour of father namely Ram Awtar, which was converted into sub-lease with effect from 01.01.1996 and the sub- lease of the said holding still continues in the name of Sri Ram Awtar (since deceased). It has been proved that the suit land was developed by the father, however, defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff has left khapraposh house in the year 1992 after taking all retirement benefits of his father from his mother. After disinterest of plaintiff in repairing, modification of khaparaposh construction house made by him and he renovated the khaparposh house with his own money i.e. more or less Rs.25 lacs with the consent of the plaintiff, but he has not filed any document regarding expenditure of Rs.25 lacs in modification of the said Khaparposh house. In view of that the learned Court has found the unity of title and possession. 9. In view of that the learned Court has found the unity of title and possession. 9. So far the entire property with regard to the said partition suit is concerned, the Court has found that no document regarding the joint property situated at Amlori and Delhi has been brought on the record and in view of that the learned Court has not accepted the contention of the defendants. In this way, the learned trial court has decreed the suit property. 10. Learned First Appellate Court has further appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and noted the fact about investment of 25 lacs with consent, however, no receipt of investment has been shown and no document regading any joint property was brought on the record that was also found by the learned first appellate court and the learned first appellate court has further considered the certain case law and thereafter he has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal by the judgment dated 22.07.2024 and decree signed on 02.08.2024 11. In view of the above, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to substantial question of law is not a law point to admit the second appeal. The High Court is not required to re-appreciate the facts in the second appeal and the second appeal can be admitted only on the substantial question of law. No perversity has been shown in either of the judgments of learned Trial Court or First Appellate Court. In view of that, this second appeal is dismissed.