Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was dispute with regard to time of death of Mani Nath Sahu and if he died prior to 1957, married daughter could not have got share in the ancestral property and if he died after 1956, daughter got share in ancestral property.
(2.) THE controversy centres around this issue only. Learned first appellate court has considered the evidence in detail specifically dealing with the oral evidence produced by the parties and thereafter observed that there is no cogent evidence in relation to the time of death of Mani Nath Sahu and on vague evidence, no reliance can be placed. Such finding of fact is sought to be challenged in this second appeal, which is absolutely impermissible as has been recorded by appreciation of evidence by the court below. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, which is dismissed.;