Learned counsel for the appellants contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have admitted the mutual partition and, therefore, factum of mutual partition is proved. The contention cannot be accepted. Merely because respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the stage of second appeal have admitted the alleged partition; the said admission will have no adverse bearing against claim of respondent No.1, who is contesting the factum of mutual partition. On the other hand, both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence, have come to concurrent finding against the plaintiffs regarding the plea of alleged partition. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. There is only oral evidence led by the plaintiffs regarding alleged partition. However, said oral evidence has been rebutted by sworn statement of defendant-respondent No.1. Lower appellate Court is the final Court of fact. It has not been shown that the Courts below have misread or misappreciated the evidence. Consequently, concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal.
