factual issues and ultimately agreed with the findings of the trial Court. Both the Courts also held that even before the filing of the suit the plaintiff sold an extent of 17 cents as per Exs.B1 and B2 to third parties, but that fact was not disclosed in the plaint, for which the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would try to explain and expound that that was not the point in issue at all and after selling those extents of land only, the plaintiff became entitled to 83 cents, for which the learned counsel for the defendants would appropriately point out that in the narration of facts in the plaint it is found exemplified that in the partition an extent of 83 cents alone was allegedly allotted in favour of the plaintiff and even that has not been proved. As such both the Courts below left no stone unturned in analysing the evidence and ultimately they arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is having no case of his own and in such a case there is no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in the matter. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Gms Sd/Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri. 2. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Palacode. + 1 cc to Mr. S. Rajendrakumar, Advocate SR No.15543 + 1 cc to Mr. V.R. Anna Ganthi, Advocate SR No.15601 NG(CO) SR/22.3.2011 S.A.No.133 of 2010
