appellant and that he was cultivating the land thereafter. Both the courts have considered this aspect and have recorded cogent reasons and have not accepted this submission. The appellant has not produced any other evidence to prove that in fact there was a partition between Janardan and the appellant/ defendant No.2. Mere entry in the record of rights does not confer title on any person. The said entry was made in the year 1997. So far as the second submission is concerned, that is also without any substance. In the written statement there is a specific averment that purchase price was paid by the Defendant No.2 though land was purchased in the name of Janardan, therefore, the question of referring the matter to the tenancy court, does not arise in this case. Suit was filed immediately thereafter. Though initially defendant No.2 was not made a party to the suit, lateron he was added as defendant. It is not possible, therefore, to interfere with concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is raised in this Second Appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.