JUDGMENT : S.N. Saxena, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri V. N. Singh, Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad, Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1978 arising out of regular Suit No. 457 of 1973. The decision of the lower appellate Court is dated 29-3-1979. 2. Plaintiff, Kanhaiya Lal, had instituted the aforesaid regular suit for partition of his l/4th share in house No. 255 situate in Old Katra, Allahabad and for possession upon the share allotted to him as a result of the partition decree. The Defendants are co-owners of the disputed property. The Plaintiff has given a pedigree in para 1 of his plaint which is as follows: Chhedi Lal Mata Badal Ram Das Lakshman Das Kanhaiya Lal Madan Gopal Sita Ram Rani Devi Shakuntala Devi Kamla Devi Sumitra Devi 3. According to the Plaintiff, a family settlement had taken place amongst Chhedi Lal, his sons and other members of his family which was reduced to writing also on 21-4-1934. It was got registered with Sub-Registrar, Allahabad on 26-4-1934. Mata Badal and his sons as a result thereof became the owners of the house property detailed in the map attached with' the plaint and the Plaintiff had got l/4th share therein. During the life time of Mata Badal, there had been a mutual partition of the disputed house owned by him and his three sons and the rest of the articles had remained joint Originally he had pleaded that his share was 2/7th in the house and 1/7th in the rest of the property but he got the 11th para of the plaint amended and pleaded that. He claimed only l/4th share in the property in dispute. He requested the Defendants a number of times for partition and possession of his share but in vain, hence the suit. 4. The Defendants, besides other pleas, pleaded that partition had already taken place of the disputed property and the Plaintiff was in exclusive possession of his share. The house property belonging to Mata Badal and his sons was numbered as 255. They further pleaded that Plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal and Defendant No. 1 Madan Gopal had completely separated their shares in the house' and the suit in view of the partition, which had already taken place, was not maintainable. The house property belonging to Mata Badal and his sons was numbered as 255. They further pleaded that Plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal and Defendant No. 1 Madan Gopal had completely separated their shares in the house' and the suit in view of the partition, which had already taken place, was not maintainable. Mata Badal allegedly had executed a will on 24-11-70 according to which he had given his entire 1/4th share to Defendants No. 3 to 6 who were his daughters. The Plaintiff, therefore, could not get 2/7th and l/4th share, the claim for which, as mentioned above however, had been given up by the Plaintiff. 5. The learned Munsif, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, arrived at the conclusion that the partition of the disputed property had already taken place, and therefore, it could not be ordered again. He, therefore, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1978 which, as mentioned above, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. He agreed with the finding given by the learned Munsif that partition had already taken place and, therefore, the suit for partition again was not maintainable. The Plaintiff, thereafter, preferred this. Second Appeal. 6. It was vehemently argued for the Appellants that the Courts below " bad not correctly read the evidence on the record and had returned a wrong finding that mutual partition had already taken place between the co-owners' of the property in dispute and therefore, this appeal was liable to be allowed. 7. The substantial question of law which finds place at. page 3 of the memorandum of the second appeal reads as follows: Whether mere legal partition in a joint Hindu family i.e. disruption of Joint-status at au earlier stags, can be proved by a party, to bar division by meets and bounds. 8. 7. The substantial question of law which finds place at. page 3 of the memorandum of the second appeal reads as follows: Whether mere legal partition in a joint Hindu family i.e. disruption of Joint-status at au earlier stags, can be proved by a party, to bar division by meets and bounds. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents argued that as a matter of fact the substantial question of law framed by the learned counsel for the Appellants was not at all a question of law; that both the courts below had returned concurrent findings of fact that partition of the house already had taken place; that there was no legal bar against Defendants due to which they were not entitled to adduce evidence to prove the earlier partition between the co-owners of the house; that they also were entitled to prove disruption of the joint status of the joint family al an earlier stage and that the second appeal having no substantial question of law involved in it was liable to be dismissed. 9. After carefully considering the submissions put forward on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties? am of opinion that the appeal, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and absence of a substantial question of law, was liable to be dismissed. 10. The first portion of the aforesaid substantial question of law read as follows: Whether mere legal partition in a joint Hindu family...can be proved by a party... 11. The word 'legal' 'n the alleged substantial question of law appears to have been added unnecessarily because whether partition had taken place earlier or not was a question of fact only which could be proved by the Defendants as has been done also in this case. The only question involved in this appeal, thus, is a question of fact viz., whether partition already had taken place between the parties. This question has been answered concurrently against the Plaintiff-Appellants by both the courts below.. The argument that the Court below had not properly read the evidence on the record, does not appear to carry force. After having carefully gone through the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court, I do not find any manifest error so far as the scrutiny of the evidence was concerned. 12. Partition amongst the members of a Hindu joint family does not require writing or registration. After having carefully gone through the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court, I do not find any manifest error so far as the scrutiny of the evidence was concerned. 12. Partition amongst the members of a Hindu joint family does not require writing or registration. A legal and valid partition between the members of a joint Hindu family can be made orally also. The only legal requirement is expression by a Coowner of his unequivocal intention to separate followed by the actual separation. The evidence on the record clearly proved that the above requirement of law was being fulfilled in this case. The lower appellate Court, therefore, rightly held that partition had already taken place. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. The appeal is dismissed with costs.