IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.522 of 1998 Date of decision : June 22, 2010 Tarlok Chand and others …Appellants. Versus Shankar and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, with Mr. Rajnish Lall, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal, by the plaintiffs, who have suffered concurrent findings, qua the issues raised by them, had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the courts below have misconstrued the basic documents title Ex. PX dated 14.6.59 which evidences the Memorandum of family settlement and private family partition? 2. Whether the family partition Ex. P6 was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and could be looked into for the collateral purpose for seeing the nature of possession? 3. Whether on the material on record it was established that private partition had taken place between the parties and the partition had taken by metes and bounds and the plaintiff being in possession of the property had affected improvements and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… development on the property in respect of his share which could not be repartitioned?” 2. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that there had been a private partition of the suit property between their predecessor Khindu and defendant No.1 Shankar and that partition having already taken place, application filed by respondent-defendant No.1 Shankar, for partition, under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act, was not competent and maintainable. By way of further relief, injunction was sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land, which they claimed to have fallen to their predecessor Khindu’s share in the said private partition. 3. Suit was contested by the respondents- defendants, who denied that any partition had taken place. They stated that the alleged writing of partition Ex. P-6 had not been given effect to nor does that document indicate that partition of the property by metes and bounds was done. It simply records the share of the parties. It was also stated that Shankar was minor at the time when document Ex. P-6 had allegedly been executed. 4. Trial Court concluded that no partition had taken place and that the suit property was still joint, though in separate possession of the parties for convenient cultivation. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of District Judge stands dismissed. …3… 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. A bare reading of Ex. P-6, which is dated 16.4.1959, shows that no partition, by metes and bounds, had taken place between the parties. The writing simply says that plaintiffs’ predecessor Khindu will be having 60 per cent share in the joint property, while Shankar will have 40 per cent share. Also, there is a reference as to which brother will occupy which portion of the Abadi. Since the document does not partition the agricultural land, by metes and bounds, and simply states the respective shares of the parties, it cannot be said that by this document any partition had been carried out. Otherwise also, the alleged private partition was not got affirmed from the revenue authorities, under Section 135 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Admittedly, no party had moved any application, under Section 135 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, for giving effect to the alleged private partition. For the foregoing reasons all the three substantial questions of law are answered against the plaintiffs-appellants and, consequently, the appeal is dismissed. June 22, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J