In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, illegal, or suffer from a significant procedural error.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. N.P. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants / appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 25.08.2014 and the decree following thereupon signed on 04.09.2014, passed in Title Appeal No. 32 of 2014, by the Principal District Judge, Jamtara, by which, the said appeal has been dismissed by way of affirming the judgment dated 30.04.2014 and the decree signed on 15.05.2014, passed in Title (P) Suit No. 11 of 2005, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jamtara.

3. Title Partition Suit No. 11 of 2005 was instituted for partition and coming out the separate share of the parties.

4. Learnd counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there are substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal, in view of that this second appeal may kindly be admitted. According to him, the learned courts have failed to decide the customary law of inheritance and in view of that this second appeal is having the substantial question of law for admission. On this ground, he submits that this second appeal may kindly be admitted.

5. From the judgment of the learned courts, it transpires that the case of the plaintiffs/ appellants was that the plaintiffs as well as the Principal defendants are by caste Mohili, but since time immemorial they have adopted Hinduism for all purposes inclusive of inheritance and succession besides their cultural formalities. The properties described in the Scheduled -A appended to the plaint originally belongs to Bhola Mohali, Gopi Mohali and Kisto Mohali during the last survey settlement, who hold the same appertain to joint khata No. 32 of mouza Jagannathpur. The properties described in the schedule-B of the plaint stands over the joint Khatian and the parties to the suit are in joint possession. The relationship of the parties to the suit inter-se and along with the joint recorded tenants. Plaintiffs have further submitted that the recorded tenant having their joint interest were recorded in the last survey settlement appertaining to joint Khata No. 32 of mouza Jagannathpur but their respective possession over joint lands were recorded in the remark column of the purcha.

The recorded tenants so long they were alive remained joint in the eye of law, but possessed the lands in suit as per their respective possession as a result of amicably family arrangement and recorded as such. Out of the recorded tenants Kisto Mohali, being the eldest, died first leaving his only son Gobindo-Mohali who continued to possess the suit properties in continuation of jointness along with other recorded tenants Bhola Mohali and Gopi Mohali. Thereafter, recorded tenant Gopi Mohali, a widower, died issue less leaving behind his nephew Bhola as his sole legal heir and successor. The recorded tenant Bhola Mohali had no male issue but a daughter Kuturi Mohalin hence, the said Bhola Mohali got his daughter Kuturi's married with Dukhu Mohali and kept him as Gharjamai as per their cultural rituals. The said Bhola Mohali subsequently died leaving behind Kuturi Mohalin and Ghardamad Dukhu Mohali as his legal heirs and successors. Gobinda Mohali in continuation of jointness with Kuturi Mohalin and Dukhu Mohali died leaving his only son Biram Mohali, the defendant no. 1. Subsequently Kuturi Mohalin and Duikhu Mohalin also died leaving their only son Rai Mohali who succeeded the interest of his grand-father Bhola Mohali in the lands in suit in jointness with defendant Biram Mohali. Subsequently