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 parti