Family Settlement Acted Upon for Long Duration Operates as Partition Barring Fresh Claims

The LRs of Defendant No. 1 (Rampyari) filed this Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court

The original plaintiffs (Respondent No. 1 and his father) filed a suit for declaration of joint family property, partition, and permanent injunction

They contended that while some lands were recorded in individual names, they were purchased from joint family income and later subject to a family arrangement

Defendant No. 1 claimed that the property in Village Kapisda was his self-acquired property purchased in 1969

The lower courts found that based on Rampyari's own statements, he would have been approximately 9 years old in 1969, making his claim of self-acquisition through independent earnings improbable

The courts held that a valid family settlement had already partitioned the property by conduct and possession

1. Whether the lower courts erred in their determination of the age of Defendant No. 1, thereby wrongly disbelieving his claim of self-acquired property

2. Whether the family arrangement acted upon by the parties for several years attained the character of a partition, barring a fresh suit for partition

3. Whether the appeal involves any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which restricts Second Appeals to "substantial questions of law" rather than mere questions of fact

It relied on State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) to define that concurrent findings of fact are binding unless perverse or recorded de hors the pleadings

Further, it applied the principle from Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth (2026) and Bholaram v. Ammerchand (1981), holding that even erroneous or "grossly inexcusable" findings of fact do not justify interference in a Second Appeal absent a clear error of law

The High Court observed that the lower courts' findings regarding Rampyari’s age were based on his own failure to disclose his age in pleadings and his inconsistent statements in affidavits

Because he was determined to be a minor (approx. 9 years old) at the time of the 1969 sale deed, the courts correctly inferred he lacked independent income to purchase the land

Regarding the property distribution, the Court analyzed that the long-standing separate possession of specific land parcels evidenced a "family arrangement" that operated as a valid oral partition

The court emphasized that the appellants' arguments sought a re-appreciation of evidence, which is prohibited under Section 100 CPC unless the findings are perverse

No such perversity was found as the trial court's conclusions were supported by the case record

The Court concluded that no "substantial question of law" arose, as the issues were purely factual and the findings of the lower courts were just, legal, and based on proper evidence appreciation

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, affirming the judgments of the lower courts