1. In these appeals the appellants are calling in question the correctness of the order made by the High Court in a second appeal. Respondent 1 Lakshmanan brought a suit stating that he had the right of redemption in respect of certain property. The defendant also filed another suit to which the plaintiff was impleaded as defendant. Both suits were tried together. Ultimately, the trial court took the view that Respondent 1 had not established that he is the son of Kesavan and, therefore, he had no right to claim redemption. That view of the trial court was upheld in appeal by the District Court. In the second appeal, the High Court relied on two documents, Exhs. A-9 and A-10. Exh. A-9 was a chitty bond executed by Lakshmi Pankajakshy, Kesavan Ramakrishnan and Kesavan Lakshmanan on 27-8-1125. Pankajakshy was referred to as belonging to Cheriya Pattur House. On that basis the High Court came to the conclusion that the interconnection between the parties was established and Ramakrishnan and Lakshmanan are sons of Kesavan and when they are connected with Pankajakshy, daughter of Lakshmi and all of them are of the same place of Pathirikari Muri. Cheriya Pattur House of Pathirakari Muri is the very same family referred to in Exh. A-10. The partition deed Exh. A-10 dated 12-6-1101 was examined and the High Court stated that the property belonged to the members of the family Cheriyapattu Veedu situated in Pathirikari Muri. Group 5 therein is of Lakshmi and her minor children — Pankajakshy, Kesavan Ramakrishnan and Kesavan Lakshmanan. They divided the tarward properties. That Kesavan had two sons by the names of Ramakrishnan and Lakshmanan and that their mother was Lakshmi is evident from, and clearly established by this document and, therefore, it was evident that Kesavan Lakshmanan, the plaintiff in the suit was the son of Lakshmi or the descendant of Kesavan. On that basis the suit was decreed.
2. In view of concurrent findings of the trial court and of the appellate court, it is urged in this appeal that the High Court could not have re-examined the question of fact and come to a different conclusion.
3. When a question of title arises on the basis of interpretation of the proved document it is certainly a question of law and necessarily such a question can be examined even in a second appeal and that is what has been done by the High Court. We do not think it proper to interfere with the High Court's judgment. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.