IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Regular Second Appeal No.532 of 2007. Date of decision: 03.09.2008. Dayal Singh & Others …Appellants Versus Bhagat Singh & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellants: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is defendants’ second appeal against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below in a suit instituted by the plaintiff Bhagat Singh praying for a decree for possession by way of partition by metes and bounds. On the pivotal issues, (i) as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief prayed for on the pleadings that he is the owner to the extent of 1/4th share, (ii) as to whether he is entitled to possession of the suit land, the trial Court decreed the suit on the evidence on record. In appeal, the learned District Judge has re- appreciated the entire evidence and concluded that 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 issues No.1 and 2, which have been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, do not require any interference and held that the plaintiff was one of the co-owners and as such is entitled to possession by partition. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination of the case. Learned counsel submits that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act. I do not find any such question arising for determination in the present appeal. The plaintiff has been able to establish, by clear and cogent evidence, his ownership and entitlement to the decree. A preliminary decree having been passed determining the share of the parties, it would be open to the appellant herein to take any objection in accordance with law at the time when the final decree is passed. Of-course, the questions raised in this appeal having been decided, cannot be re-agitated again. This appeal is accordingly dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for determination. There shall be no order as to costs. September 3, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.