Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17494 Court No. - 5 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 56 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt. Fahmida Khatoon And 2 Others Respondent :- Sabnoor Bano And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mahfooz Alam Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra,Sakshi Devi Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard. 2. A suit for partition was filed by the appellants. 3. Contention is that the appellants claim themselves to be the grand daughter and grand son of one Shri Mohd Hussain and want partition of their share in the house belonging to their grand father, Shri Mohd Hussain. 4. Learned Trial Court framed various issues of which one was as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled for seeking partition of the house. 5. Said issue has been decided against the plaintiffs by contending that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the house belongs to Shri Mohd Hussain. 6. It is argued that before the Trial Court, the case was also set up by the defendants but they failed to prove that the house belongs to Shri Gulami & Shri Amire. Learned Trial Court after placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Smt Ramsumrani Vs Raniram : 1992 ACJ 860 has held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the ownership of the house and cannot place reliance on the weakness of the defendants to make out any case and thus dismissed the suit vide order dated 02.08.2023. 7. Upon an appeal being filed by the appellants vide Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 2023, the said question has also been considered by the Appellate Court by framing various issues including issue No.1 as to whether the plaintiffs-appellants were entitled for seeking partition and after considering the issue threadbare the learned Appellate Court has also indicated that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the house belongs to Mohd Hussain. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that when a person claims that a particular property belongs to a family or a particular individual then the burden of proof lies on him. In the instant case, the plaintiffs- appellants miserably failed to prove that the property in which the partition suit was filed belongs to Shri Mohd Hussain and consequently the learned Trial Court has rejected the suit filed by them which finding has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 9. Considering the aforesaid concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court does not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. 10. Considering the aforesaid no ground for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench