JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- The learned counsel for the applicants in the review petition has made good the deficiency today. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants has raised three points in the support of the review application. Firstly that the appellate court has misappreciated Ex. A.l on the record and has arrived at patently erroneous conclusion. Secondly Ex. A-1 requires stamp and because it does not bear stamp, so it was inadmissible, and substantial question of law arise in the case which have not been addressed to. Thirdly it appears that the learned counsel for the appellants had not appeared when the appeal was dismissed by this court on 4-8-80. 3. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants. To my mind pure finding of fact was recorded by the appellate court in its order dated 16-10-79 to the following effect :- "It is, therefore, held that the house in dispute stood partitioned between the parties, from the times of their ancestors and there is neither occasion nor justification to set aside that partition and reopen the matter by decreeing the suit for partition by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no cause of action for getting it partitioned again. The suit deserves to be dismissed. The appeal deserves to be allowed." On the above observation the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs' suit for partition was dismissed. 4. Before me the following observation of the appellate court has been criticised and referred :- " The relevant gist of the agreement is that the houses of the parties of this agreement are ancestral and because the intervening wall between the houses which runs east west has got demolished, the parties have got it repaired in accordance with the following terms. It is agreed that this wall has been constructed by joint fund and it will be continued to be jointly owned by the two parties. Both the parties will be entitled to take support from this wall on their side to the beams of roofs of constructions to be made by them and both the parties will flow the water of roofs of their houses towards their own side. No party will have a right to drop the water of his roof on the side of the other party. This reading indicates that the house which stood joint was partitioned long back....." 5. No party will have a right to drop the water of his roof on the side of the other party. This reading indicates that the house which stood joint was partitioned long back....." 5. The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that this approach of the appellate court is patently erroneous and the findings stand vitiated in law. To my mind it cannot be said that the appraisal of evidence by the appellate court suffers from any illegality or irregularity. The view taken by the appellate court on the reading of the document appears to me a possible view, hence I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the findings stand vitiated in law. 6. As regards Ex. A-l requiring stamp I find that the appellate court has treated that document as a memorandum of past partition and it is well known that the memorandum of past partition does not require any stamp in law. I have not been shown any specific law to indicate that the memorandum of past partition also requires stamp. The agreement may require but the memorandum of past partition does not require stamp. Hence the second contention raised on behalf of the applicants also fails. In this connection the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon Article 5 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but that is not applicable in my opinion so far as the memorandum evidencing past partition is concerned. 7. As regards the third contention that the counsel did not appear when the appeal was dismissed on 4-8-1980. I do not find any specific averment in the review petition. Only on inference or conjectures one cannot be sure about the state of fact in the year 1980. However, on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants I am not at all satisfied that there exists any substantial question of law in the second appeal, hence the review petition lacks merits and deserves to be rejected. 8. In the result the review petition is rejected.