1. This second appeal under section 100 of C.P.C assails concurrent findings arrived at by both the two Courts below, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of ownership of the suit land and declaring the order of partition of Tahsildar dated 16.3.2003 as null and void and of permanent injunction against the defendants has been rejected.

2. The factual matrix involved in the instant appeal is that the plaintiff is the father of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No. 1 in collusion with the revenue authority has partitioned the land of the plaintiff by invoking section 178 of M.P. Land Revenue Code and the Tahsildar by passing the order dated 16.3.2003 under section 178 of MPLRC has partitioned the property of the plaintiff where the defendant No. 1 who is said to be the sole legal heir received 7.199 Hectare of land leaving only 0.052 Hectare of land for the plaintiff.

3. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence and material placed on record came to the finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is owner of the suit property. The trial Court further found that the plaintiff not only knew about the partition proceedings, but had infact applied for the same and thus the partition that took place by order of the Tahsildar dated 16.3.2003 under section 178 of MPLRC was with the consent of the plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant primarily contends that order of the Tahsildar of partition under section 178 of MPLRC is passed in violation of the rules framed under section 178 of MPLRC for partition of holdings during the life time of the Bhumiswami. It is contended that the said rules prescribe for partition amongst the parties in proportion to the share held by them. Thus, it is contended that the rules do not prescribe for disproportioned partition of the share, which has been done by the Tahsildar. Learned counsel further contended that since the defendant No. 1 was the sole legal heir of plaintiff she could not have received more than 50% of the holdings leaving atleast 50% for plaintiff. But, the Tahsildar by the impugned order has given much more than 50 %.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in an earlier suit had filed joint written statement making averments to the extent that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 were joint owners of the suit property. It is further contended by the respondent No. 1 that since the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is the owner of the suit property there is no occasion to deal with any other issue and, therefore, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have rightly rejected the suit.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusal of the record of both the Courts below made available, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to establish his title /ownership over the suit land and therefore, once the plaintiff could not prove the basic issue in his favour, the question of other issue regarding the order of the Tahsildar pertaining to partition of the suit property and permanent injunction need not be gone into and answered.

7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that neither any proposed substantial questions of law nor any new one arises for consideration and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings rendered by the first appellate Court.

8. Accordingly, this second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, sans cost.