I do not find any illegality in the final decree for partition passed concurrently by the courts below. True it is that a few items of property included in the preliminary decree has not been covered by the final decree. This is because one of the items was surrendered for a road and another item was completely water logged. The appellant has miserably failed to establish that the property in the possession of strangers were by virtue of a transfer pendente lite by the respondent. The appellate court has also noticed that the respondent is none other than the father of the appellant who is a nonagenarian.
2. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal. It is open to the appellant to make a motion in the court below to have a final decree passed in regard to left out items. Such a reservation has been made by the lower appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The lower appellate court has 2 RSA No. 1095/2014 made it clear that water can be drained from the water logged property and that the appellant can establish that pendente lite transferees are in possession of the left out items. That by itself need not deter the respondent from taking possession of the items of property partitioned by the courts below by metes and bounds.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE