- (1.) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant whereby he had challenged a decree suffered by his father in favour of his brother and his sons.
(2.) The learned trial Court found that firstly no evidence was placed on the record to prove the ancestral/coparcenary nature of the property; secondly that the said consent decree was duly registered; thirdly that the father of the appellant had filed a written statement in the present suit accepting the earlier decree; fourthly that the appellant had earlier filed a civil suit No.130 dated 30.04.1998 challenging the same decree which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.1998 and fifthly that in his testimony the appellant had accepted that his father had also given him 35 Bighas of land. These findings were upheld in appeal.
(3.) The only argument i.e. being raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the original consent decree was passed by the Judge who had decided the present appeal and therefore the said decision is improper.;