Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Since both the Second Appeals have been preferred against the same judgments passed by the Courts below dismissing the Original Suit as well as counter claim set up by the Defendants and the two Civil Appeals, these Second Appeals are being decided by one and common judgment.

2. These Second Appeals have come up before this Court for admission today.

3. Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Somesh Khare, Smt. Komal Khare and Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the respondents as well as perused the materials on record, including the, judgments rendered by the trial Court, that is, Civil Judge (Junior Division), East, Ballia and the Lower Appellate Court, that is, the III Additional District Judge, Ballia.

4. These Second Appeals have been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2009, rendered by the Lower Appellate Court dismissing two Civil Appeals, filed by the appellants herein, that is, Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1998, Ram Prasad and others v. Chandrika Prasad and others and Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1998, Nanhe Lal and others v. Chandrika Prasad and others, to challenge the judgment and decree rendered by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), East, Ballia, on 4.2.1998 by which the Original Suit No. 76 of 1972 was dismissed and the counter claim set up by the appellants was also rejected. In the present case, while rendering the impugned judgments and decrees, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, rejecting the claim of the appellant, Nanhe Lal, seeking partition of the property in dispute.

5. It emerges from the record that the dispute relates to a Survey Plot No. 93/1, having an area of 60 decimal, situate at Neuri, Taluka, Jamua, Tehsil Ballia, District Ballia. An Original Suit NO. 76 of 1972 as filed by one Nanhe Lal (now represented by his Legal Heirs and Legal Representatives, who are appellants herein) against Jamuna Prasad and others, some of them are now represented by their legal heirs and legal representatives, seeking partition of above said plot and for delivery of possession. The case set forth by the plaintiff in the plaint was that the contesting parties were descendants of a common ancestor, that is, of one Ram Ugrah Lal. The relations between the parties have been shown in the Pedigree given at the foot of the plaint.

6. Ram Ugrah Lal had three sons, that is, Bhairo Dyal, Devi Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal. According to the plaintiff, these three brothers were members of the joint family as per Mitakshara Law and were living together. Bhairo Dayal, being the eldest brother/eldest son of Ram Ugrah Lal, was Karta and manager of the family. It was alleged in the plaint that the three brothers obtained a lease (Patta Ishtmurari) of the property No. 93/1, area 7 decimal, from its owners, that is, one Roop Kala Kunwari, said to be guardian of Mathura Singh, Raghunath Singh and Madan Gopal Singh. It was further alleged that the latter owners, Hemu Pandey and Raj Dayal also executed a registered lease deed (Ishtmurari Patta) on 23.11.1917 in favour of abovesaid three brothers, Bhairo Dayal, Devi Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal in respect of some portion of the same Plot, that is, Plot No. 93/1, siutate at Village Neuri, Taluka Jamua, Tehsil Balia. It was pleaded in the plaint that Hemu Pandey and Raj Dayal had executed another lease deed on 23.11.1917 in favour of abovesaid Bhairo Dyal, Devi Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal in respect of some other portion of the said plot. It was submitted that the name of three brothers was jointly recorded in respect of the said plot in Khasra 1372 Fasali. This revenue entry occurring in Khasra 1372 Fasali was challenged by Jamuna Lal and others before the Tehsildar, Ballia seeking expunction of the names of Bhairo Dayal, Devi Dayal and Parmeshwar Dayal. The Sub Divisional Officer, Ballia vide an order dated 29th September, 1970 had rejected the application submitted by Jamuna Lal and others.