constituted by plaintiffs and defendant no.1. On the contrary, it is well settled law that a Joint Hindu Family need not necessarily possess any property, although its members may possess their separate individual property. Consequently, in the instant case, merely because plaintiffs and defendant no.1 constituted Joint Hindu Family, it cannot be said that the suit land was property of Joint Hindu Family. However, even assuming it to be property of Joint Hindu Family, the compromise was for the benefit of the said family, which was entered into by all the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 herein because under the compromise, the family has been able to retain almost 2/3rd of the suit land. Defendant no.1 was also under debt and had taken earnest money under agreements to sell the suit land and under the compromise, the said debts also stand cleared. Thus, examined from any angle, compromise dated 05.10.1995 and consequently, judgment and decree dated 05.10.1995 are legal and valid and are not vitiated in any manner. Both the courts below have recorded elaborate judgments dealing with all the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below against the plaintiffs is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. On the contrary, as noticed in the opening part of the judgment, the instant litigation is result of
