IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No. 593 of 2008 Date of Decision : 13.10.2009 Amru @ Amar Singh …Appellant. v. Jai Pal & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For respondents 2 & 3: Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Hardeep Verma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). In this appeal, the defendant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 21-N/13 of 2007 titled as Amru vs. Jai Pal & Ors., affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Civil Suit No. 142/1 of 2004, titled as Jai Pal vs. Amru & Ors. Thus, the appellant has assailed the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Court below. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The plaintiff-respondents herein filed a suit for partition with respect to the premises jointly owned by the parties. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is having 1/4th share measuring 0-7 biswas, the defendant No.1 having 1/4th share, and defendants No.2 & 3 are having half share in equal shares, in the suit property, as alleged? ……………….OPP 2. Whether Hirda Ram, the brother of the plaintiff, has already relinquished his entire share in favour of the plaintiff? ……….OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged?. …OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground of partial partition? ………....OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit, as alleged? …….OPD 6. Whether the entire land was partitioned amongst the defendant No.1 and father of plaintiff Shri Jathu, in the year 1980 on Dussehra day amicably, as alleged? ….OPD 7. Whether the parties have taken possession of their respective shares treating themselves to the exclusive owner in possession of the same? …OPD 8. Whether the defendant No.1 and his sons have raised new construction after demolishing the old construction over Khasra No.341 within the knowledge of the plaintiff and his father? ……OPD 3 9. Whether the plaintiff has raised construction over Khasra No. 146 after demolishing the old structure? …OPD 10. Relief.” The question of partial partition, the sole ground on which the impugned judgments and decrees are sought to be assailed, was dealt with by the Courts below by holding that the defendant (appellant herein) himself had initiated proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla with respect to the land not being a subject-matter of the suit. Therein, the defendant was claiming oral partition which had taken place prior to the institution of the suit. Thus, the defendant’s plea raised therein is contradictory. The Courts below have elaborately considered this aspect of the matter while deciding issues No.1 & 4. Considering the concurrent findings of facts as also the defendant’s own conduct, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. I find no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application. October 13, 2009. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.