D. M. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal by defendant No. 1/ b is against the confirming judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and directing partition of the suit schedule properties half and half between the plaintiff and the above defendant. It is admitted case of the said defendant-appellant that though the schedule 'a' property is liable to be partitioned, schedule 'b' property was the self-acquired property of his father Basudeba and the same having been separately recorded in the record of right, he was entitled to the said property to the exclusion of all others.

( 2 ) NONE appeared for the respondents. Mr. B. R. Sarangi, counsel for the appellant, did not press the other grounds of appeal so far as they relate to the findings of the Courts below that the defendant failed to prove that 'b' schedule property is his exclusive property and that it was not liable for partition. This has been so done by Mr. Sarangi rightly since this Court sitting in the second appeal would not disturb the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it was stenuously urged by Mr. Sarangi that though this defendant at the earlier possible opportunity raised the iss