IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 1.RSA. No. 271 of 2000. 2.RSA.No.307 of 2000. Date of Decision: 23.2.2011. _______________________________________________ 1.RSA. No.271 of 2000. Begmu Devi and others. …Appellants. Versus. Narain Singh and others. ….Respondents. For the appellant. :Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 6. :Mr. D.N.Ronta, Advocate. For Respondent-7 :Mr. B.N.Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent-8 :Mr.Vijay Bhatia, Advocate. 2.RSA. No. 307 of 2000. Smt.Kesri. …Appellant. Versus: Smt.Begmu Devi and others. …Respondents. For the appellant. :Mr.Rakesh Kanwar, Advocate. For Respondents 1(a) to 1(f) :Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. For Respondent 3(a) to 3(c) :Mr. D.N.Ronta, Advocate. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by Sh. Manohar Lal praying for decree of declaration that (a) he is the co- owner of the land comprised in Khata No. 54, Khatauni No. 80 Kitas 15 measuring 22-17 bighas situated in Chak Kelvi, Khata No. 54, Khatauni No. 81 kitas 1 measuring 2-1, Khata No.14, Khatauni No. 20 measuring 19-2 bighas and in khata No.55 Khatauni No.82 kitas 2 measuring 1-18 bighas situated in Chak Kelvi and (b) in exclusive and separate possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 591, 565, 645, 756,612,613,727,586,731,741,732 and 687 kitas 12 measuring 20-11 bighas situated in Chak Kelvi. Consequential relief of prohibitory injunction was also sought. The learned trial Court on the settled issues, decreed the suit of the plaintiff Manohar Lal. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, appellants Narain Singh, Dharam Dass, Jarmi, Kesari, Kamla and Subhdra successors-in-interest of Atma Ram preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge praying that the judgment and decree be set aside. One of the points urged by the appellants was that no partition by metes and bounds has been established on the record of the case. The learned District Judge, after re-appreciation of the entire evidence concluded that though the previous judgments and decrees inter se between the parties are binding but it was not proved/established that they had been a partition of the land by metes and bounds. Accordingly, the learned court allowed the appeal only to the extent that the defendants will not cause any interference over the land in the 3 cultivating possession of the plaintiff which he had been inherited by way of the Will Ext.P-1 from the predecessor-in-interest of one Smt.Purnu till the entire suit land is partitioned in accordance with law. The court held that the findings of the learned trial Court to the effect that the suit land stood partitioned were reversed. 4. Two appeals have been preferred against this judgment and decree by the successors-in-interest of Sh.Manohar Lal and the second by Smt. Kesri Devi, who had not appealed/challenged the findings of the learned trial Court. Similar questions of law for determination have been raised in both these appeals. The appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1.Whether on the proper construction of the provisions of Section 135 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, was it mandatory to record and confirm private partition before the same could be accepted in law.? 2. Whether the court below has drawn wrong inference from the fact proved on record and has misread the statement of PW-1 Manohar Lal, PW-7 M.S.Thakur, DW-1 Narain Singh and Ext.P-1, P-2,P-3 and P-4?. 5. Adverting to the first question, I find that it will not require any determination by this Court and on the second question, all that I need say is that the learned appellate Court has appreciated/re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. I do not find anything in the statement of PW1 Manohar Lal, PW7 M.S.Thakur, DW1 Narain Singh and Ext.P1, Ext.P2, Ext.P3, Ext.P4 which would establish that there has been a partition by metes and bounds. The judgment of the learned appellate Court is replete in detail and does not call for re-appreciation of facts. 4 6. Having said that, it cannot be denied that the learned appellate Court has held that the possession of the plaintiff Manohar Lal cannot be disturbed that is to say that his cultivating possession cannot be interfered with by any of the defendants. That is but a natural consequence of a person who is in legitimate occupation of land. 7. In these circumstances, both these appeals are disposed of with the direction that it will be open to the parties to approach the revenue court for partition of the land in accordance with law. Needless to say that when the partition is being effected by metes and bounds, the respective possession of the parties shall be respected and taken into consideration as warranted by law. Appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. February 23, 2011(R)