JUDGMENT J.S. Trivedi, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal filed by Hansraj Singh. I have heard Sri Rama Shankar Misra, counsel for the appellant and Sri G.P, Bhargava for the respondents. It appears that, the appellant filed a suit for partition of a house as also for injunction against the respondents on the ground that it was joint Hindu property of the parties. Plaintiff claimed to belong to the branch of Jagdeo Singh and defendants represented the branch of Ram Charan Singh. According to the admitted pedigree Ram Khilawan, Jagdeo Singh and Ram Charan Singh were brothers. Kamta Singh the predecessor of the plaintiff was the son of Jagdeo Singh and Kuber Singh who died issueless was the son of Ram Khilawan. The suit was resisted by the defendants mainly on the ground that the property had already been partitioned and the suit was not maintainable. It may be mentioned here that in the plaint the plaintiff had stated that there had been no partition by metes and bounds but the parties were separate and by a Taksim Khangi the branches of Ram Khilawan and plaintiff were living separately in the eastern portion of the disputed house marked in the plaint with letters ABCDE and the branch of Ram Charan represented now by the defendants was living in the western portion of the house. The trial court rejected the defendants' plea that the property had already been partitioned and finding that Kuber Singh had executed a gift of his ?rd share in the property in favour of the plaintiff awarded to the plaintiff a decree for partition of his ?rd share in the property. The defendants appealed and the Civil Judge reversed the trial court's judgment holding that there was a partition of the property already as pleaded by the defendants and as admitted in the plaint itself and dismissed the suit. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that this appeal is concluded by a finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court to the effect that there had been a private partition of the disputed property between the parties before the suit. The lower appellate court has given a number of reasons for this conclusion and it cannot be said that this finding was vitiated by any error of law. The lower appellate court has given a number of reasons for this conclusion and it cannot be said that this finding was vitiated by any error of law. The lower appellate court has taken note of the contents of paragraph 3 of the plaint where the plaintiff admitted that the parties were living in separate portions of the disputed house on the basis of a Taksim Khangi which can only be interpreted in law to mean private partition. Then he has also referred to the finding of the Commissioner and the admissions of Mathura Singh, plaintiff's own witness. I can find no good reason for interference with the assessment of evidence by the lower appellate court on the question of partition. The matter, therefore, appears to be concluded so far as this Court is concerned and this appeal is without any merits. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs to the respondents.