in the year 1994, there is no evidence placed by the defendants to prove that there was earlier oral partition. Though varadi might have been given presumably it is by virtue of oral partition, but there is no evidence produced except these varadi and mutation entries in the revenue records. Further, as per this varadi, the plaintiffs contend that the previous partition is an inequitable partition. One of the land is left out as stated above, and house properties were not included in the said alleged previous oral partition. Therefore, on this count, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court requires no interference by this Court in this second appeal. Hence, findings arrived at by both Courts below regarding plaintiffs are entitled to partition in the suit properties, need not be interfered with, and there is no perversity or illegality found. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits to consider the case on merits, and much less, no substantial question of law is involved.
