7.It is not in dispute that there was a partition in the family as early as on 19.11.1976 wherein the present suit property was allotted to the share of the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant. It is also not in dispute that the mother was given only life interest and thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant would get the suit property equally among themselves. When such being the admitted position of fact, it is for the defendant to prove that the plaintiff sold his share to the defendant after the death of their mother. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the defendant failed to prove such sale. Moreover, when the defendant has only pleaded oral sale that too, in respect of the property valued more than 100 rupees, the question of considering the plea of oral sale does not arise. Both the courts below have concurrently found against the defendant in respect of his claim over the suit property and accordingly decreed the suit by granting half share to the plaintiff. I find no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below especially, when I do not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration in the second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
