Gurusharan Sharma, J.

1. Plaintiff is appellant. Her suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over suit land, described in Schedule to the plaint was decreed. The said decree was modified by the Court of Appeal below and suit was decreed in part only. Hence, plaintiff has filed present (second appeal challenging the said part of the impugned decree, whereby trial Courts decree in her favour was set aside.

2. Admittedly, Kumar Kashinath Singh and Kumar Shri Nath Singh defendants 5 and 6 were recorded tenant of the suit land.

3. According to plaintiff, both of them separated by way of family arrangement and suit land was exclusively allotted to defendant No. 6, who subsequently, by registered sale deed dated 6.9.1969. Ext. 2, transferred it to him.

4. All of a sudden, on 3.11.1971 defendants looted his crops raised over the suit land, for which criminal proceedings were instituted.

5. Plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 5, by registered sale deed dated 7.7.1970. Ext. A/1, transferred the suit land to defendant No. 4, who in his turn, by registered sale deed dated 16.1 1.1970 transferred the same to defendant No. 1.

6. Plaintiff miserably failed to prove any family arrangement and/or partition by nooks and bounds between the recorded tenants, defendants 5 and 6.

7. However, it is not in dispute that both of them had equal share to the extent of half and half. Total area of plot No. 211 was 89 decimals. It was found that its southern half portion was in actual physical possession of contesting defendant and plaintiff had her half share over the northern portion. One of the recorded tenant, namely, Kumar Shri Nath Singh, defendant No. 6 in his deposition as DW 6 categorically stated that there was no family arrangement between his and his younger brother, defendant No. 5 and actually suit plot No. 211 along with other plots were partitioned in two equal shares. Defendant No. 5 was allotted to 44-1/2 decimals in plot No. 211 on the southern portion. .

8. Accordingly first appellate Court declared plaintiffs title over northern half portion of plot No. 211 and her possession was confirmed over 44-1/2 decimals thereof. Southern portion to the extent of 44-1/2 decimals belonged to defendants 1 to 2 and 3.

9. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. This second Appeal is accordingly, dismissed, but with out costs.

10. Appeal dismissed.