Shah, C. J. - (1.) Raja Bahadur Harihar Prasad Narain Singh hereinafter called 'the Raja' settled in 1936 an area of 15 bighas of land in village Nanour Tanzi Nos. 11021 and 11163 out of his joint family estate upon Ambica Prasad and Harihar Prasad-herein after called "respondents 1 and 2". The Annual Jama of the land was Rs. 15/-. The appellant who is the son of the Raja filed in 1942 a suit for partition of the joint family estate. The suit was compromised. The appellant claims that the land settled upon respondents 1 and 2 were allotted to his share by that compromise. In 1946 the appellant dispossessed respondents 1 and 2 from the land settled upon them. Respondents 1 and 2 commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Patna, against the appellant and his brother for a decree for possession of the land and for mesne profits. The appellant by his written statement denied the settlement and set up the plea by respondents 1 and 2, that he and the members of his family were at all relevant times in possession of the land and that he had not dispossessed respondents 1 and 2 as alleged.
(2.) The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the land in "dispute was" settled upon the respondents 1 and 2 by the Raja and that the Respondents 1 and 2 were in possession of the land since that date and that they were wrongfully dispossessed by the appellant. The High Court in appeal confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. With certificate granted by the High Court under, Article 135 of the Constitution, this appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The decision of the Trial Court which was confirmed by the High Court proceeded upon appreciation of evidence on questions of fact. Both the Courts have held that there was a settlement in favour of respondents 1 and 2 by the Raja, that Respondents 1 and 2 were in possession of the land since that date, and that they had been forcibly dispossessed of the land by the appellant. This Court normally does not interfere with concurrent findings on questions of and does not enter upon a re-appraisal of the evidence. No ground is made out before us for attempting a re-appraisal of the evidence.;