Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J. - (1.) The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Sultanpur, in Regular Suit No.202 of 1983, by which the plaintiffs' suit for partition was dismissed with costs, against which Civil Appeal no.82 of 2005 before the learned First Appellate Court which has also been dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2013, by learned Additional District Judge/Ex-cadre, Sultanpur.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) The dispute relate to an agricultural property for which the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. Both the Courts below have conclusively found that the plaintiff is not the coowner in the disputed property and, as such, have dismissed the suit for partition. There are concurrent findings of fact and there is no perversity in the conclusions made and findings arrived at by the two courts below. Even, all the substantial questions of law framed by the learned counsel for the appellants relate to questions of fact.;