Judgment O. N. Asthana, J. 1. The appeal No.791 of 1978 has been filed by defendant no.1 - appellant Gorakh Kuar against the judgment and decree dated 29th june, 1978 passed by 8th Additional sub-Judge, Siwan in Original Suit No.141 of 1971, where the Trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff-respondent Sukhdeo Kuar declaring that Sukhdeo Kuar has one-fourth share in the properties, and the decree for partition was granted. 2. The another Appeal No.288 of 1981 has been filed by the defendant-appellant of the same partition suit challenging the report of the Pleader commissioner on which the final partition decree in the case has been prepared. 3. The property in suit comprises the agricultural land of the two villages, and the homestead land shown in schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint respectively 4. The family pe-digree is as follows: bisheshwar Kuar 5. According to the plaintiff six sons of Bisheshwar Kuar separated amongst themselves before the operation of the revisional survey dividing the properties equally for the convenience amongst all the brothers, though it was not a partition by metes and bounds; the brother Ganesh Kuar died leaving behind his widow Bahora Kuar, and later smt. Bahora Kuar and Mahendra Kuar died issueless and thus the branches of the four sons of Bisheshwar Kuar remained the claimants in possession; the plaintiff being the sole male member in his fathers branch has been experiencing difficulty in cultivation, and thus the plaintiff prayed for the partition by metes and bounds. 6. Defendant No.1 Gorakh Kuar put the contest pleading that it was wrong to say that there was simply separation for the convenient arrangement and the fact is that the final complete partition had taken place amongst the seven sons of Bisheshwar Kuar, and the seventh son was Achhewat Kuar and his son was Roshan Kuar; that after this partition before the operation of revisional order seven shares were allotted in partition finally, Ganesh Kuar, bhairo Kuar and Mahendra Kuar reunited and thus reconstituted a joint family of three brothers; that later on ganesh Kuar died and his property came into possession of his two brothers bhairo Kuar and Mahendra Kuar and smt. Bahora Kuar wife of Ganesh Kuar was granted maintenance, though her name was got recorded in village khatian for her satisfaction along with mahendra Kuar and Bhairo Kuar; that after the death of Bahora Kuar and mahendra Kuar (who died issueless)their properties came in possession of bhairo Kuar,and defendant No.1 being the descendant of Bhairo Kuar claims three shares. 7. Defendant No.2 Jagarnath Kuar filed written statement raising the plea when Smt. Bahora Kuar and Mahendra kuar died Ramanand Kuar was alive, and thus Ramanand Kuar came in possession of three shares out of six and they devolved upon the defendant No.2. 8. The Trial Judge arrived at the findings that the re-union was not proved; that there was no partition by metes and bounds; that the plea of ouster pleaded by the plaintiff is not proved, and the contention of defendant no.2 that half share devolved on him has not been accepted by the Trial court. 9. The following grounds arise in appeal for decision: (1) Whether there was final partition as alleged by the defendants or it was a separation for the convenient living; (2) If there was any re-union after the partition as alleged by defendant no. l. 10. Point No.1:- Plaintiff Sukhdeo kuar P. W.1 and the witnesses of the plaintiff Ram Kripa) Singh, Kapildeo singh and Shayam Bahadur Singh P. Ws.2, 3 and 5 have stated on oath that the parties were cultivating the lands separately according to their con-venience,and that no partition by metes and bounds was there. Learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out that these witnesses of the plaintiff have admitted that jhur-dandar was there dividing the plots and it is a positive indication that the partition has taken place. For the convenient cultivation on the joint land separately Jhur-dandar would have been raised inside the plots so that each branch could tilt the land and raise the crops putting more and more labour separately. This aspect of raising Jhur-dandar does not give rise to a positive inference that final partition has taken place. 11 Learned Advocate for the appellants also has drawn attention to the statement of Ram Kripal Singh P. W 2, who used the word partition of the lands. Reading of the whole sentence shows that the word partition has been uttered by this witness Ram Kripal singh for the convenient arrangement dividing the lands. 11 Learned Advocate for the appellants also has drawn attention to the statement of Ram Kripal Singh P. W 2, who used the word partition of the lands. Reading of the whole sentence shows that the word partition has been uttered by this witness Ram Kripal singh for the convenient arrangement dividing the lands. The statement of this witness is that these branches did not partition the land in accordance with law and they separated the land of the plots to suit their convenience. Obviously this statement of Ram Kripal singh does not establish that there was a final partition. 12. There is the statement of defendant No.1 Gorakh Kuar D. W.1 that the ancestral land was partitioned in seven shares and all the shares were divided equally. Ram Ekbal Singh defendant No.3, D. W.8 has stated on oath that all the six sons of Bisheshwar kuar separated before the operation and the preparation of survey Khatian. 13. Certified copy of Khatian-Ex-hibit-C shows a total area of 3 Bigha 11 katha and each of the seven co-sharers were entitled to 10 kathas of land in this khata. But the recorded entry shows that Ramnandan Kuar possessed 8 kathas land, Bhairo Kuar possessed 7 katha and 5 dhurs land, and Bhairo, mahendra and Smt. Bahora Kuar possessed 14 kathas of land. These areas against the individual names show prima facie that there was no partition. 14. The khatian of khata No.128-Exhibit-3 has the record of all the co-sharers jointly. This entry goes to negative the case of the partition. 15. The execution of Zarpeshgi deed on 1st September, 1979 by Gorakh kuar might be the transfer of the land in possession of Gorakh Kuar. This deed cannot be taken to be the proof of partition. 16. The defendants had not given either any schedule attached with their written statement or statement on oath what plots and their areas were given to each son of Bisheshwar Kuar. The plea of the final partition raised by the defendants is not proved. 17. Point No.2:- The defendant gorakh Kuar D. W.1 has stated on oath that Bhairo Kuar, Mahendra Kuar and smt. Bahora Kuar reunited. Under the hindu law Smt. Bahora (female) could not constitute re-union. Only male members who had separated by partition could re-unite. The plea of the final partition raised by the defendants is not proved. 17. Point No.2:- The defendant gorakh Kuar D. W.1 has stated on oath that Bhairo Kuar, Mahendra Kuar and smt. Bahora Kuar reunited. Under the hindu law Smt. Bahora (female) could not constitute re-union. Only male members who had separated by partition could re-unite. The deposition of the defendant does not prove the plea of re-union, and this state of the defendants on oath disproves the case of the re-union pleaded by the defendants. The other evidence of witness Kundal Singh d. W.3 is there that Smt. Bahora lived with Bhairo and Mahendra and they cultivated the land of Smt. Bahora and they maintained her. Basawan Singh D. W.4 and Digambar Nath Singh D. W.5 stated that defendant Gorakh, grandson of bhairo Kuar was cultivating three shares in the disputed land out of seven shares. The Advocate for the appellants urged that this much cultivation by gorakh goes to establish that re-union. The mere fact of possession is not enough to prove the re-union. 18 Ram Ekbal Singh, defendant no.3-D. W.8 stated that the alleged reunion of Bhairo, Mahendra and Ganesh is certified only from the entry in the illage record. Thus it appears that finding a clerical omission in the village record that Bhairo, Mahendra and ganesh happened to be shown recorded jointly over some land in dispute, the plea of re-union has been raised by the defendants. 19. There is no evidence enough to establish the alleged plea of re-union. 20. The revisional survey records which are prepared after verification, due publication and disposal of objections if any, record the name of Smt. Bahora Kuar in revisional survey khatian stepping into the shoes of her late husband and succeeding her husbands share. There is no note that the name of Smt. Bahora Kuar was being recorded as a maintenance holder. This record of the name of Smt. Bahora kuar getting the share of her husband by succession as his widow also goes to negative the alleged plea of re-union raised by the defendants. 21. The plea of re-union is not proved. 22. The appeal No.791 of 1978 stands dismissed with costs. 23. This record of the name of Smt. Bahora kuar getting the share of her husband by succession as his widow also goes to negative the alleged plea of re-union raised by the defendants. 21. The plea of re-union is not proved. 22. The appeal No.791 of 1978 stands dismissed with costs. 23. In appeal No.288 of 1981 filed against the final partition decree the defendant-appellants had raised the contentions that the orchard had been allotted by the Advocate Commissioner to the plaintiff-respondent; that the homestead land allotted to appellant no.1 is in possession of the outsiders; that the convenience of the partition had not been taken into consideration, and that valuable land has been allotted to the plaintiff-respondent. 24. The report of the Advocate commissioner shows that he found the plaintiff-respondent planted the trees in this orchard and thus the Advocate commissioner preferred to give this orchard in the share of the plaintiff-respondent. The report of the Advocate commissioner shows that he made the allotments of the land in this partition keeping in view the previous possession of the parties on the land and giving that accommodation to the parties. Relating the alleged plea that homestead land allotted to appellant No.1 was in possession of outsiders had not been raised before the Advocate Commissioner and had not been raised before the Court. 25. Advocate Commissioner classified the lands in suit and prepared the valuable table of the entire properties, after making necessary inquiries. Accordingly the Advocate Commissioner divided the properties giving equal valued share. 26. There is no force in the contentions raised in this First Appeal No.288 of 1981. This First Appeal No.288 of 1981 is dismissed with costs. Appeal Dismissed.