JUDGMENT The plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree by the Courts below by which the suit of appellant has been dismissed on the ground that there was previous partition between the parties and the present suit filed for the partition is not maintainable. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 29.7.2002 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of appellant for partition of joint Hindu family property on the basis of previous partition when there was no proof of any previous partition between the parties?" The facts, in short, for the decision of this case are that the suit was filed by Jageshwar, whose legal heirs have been substituted on record in this appeal, on the ground that defendants 1 and 2 are nephew of the plaintiff. There was a previous partition in the family 50 years back from the date of filing of the suit, but, in respect of garden Survey No. 582, area 0.96 decimal, there was no partition and this property was kept as a joint property. This property remained in joint possession of the parties after death of Ayodhya and Jaggoo. Jaggoo died 20 years back, but, even thereafter this garden was not partitioned and both the parties were getting benefit of the fruits, etc. of the garden. On 16.5.1974 the defendants taking advantage of the fact that this garden was recorded in the name of Jaggoo got mutated their name in the revenue record. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order passed by Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer in the appeal set-aside the order of mutation and remanded the case to the Tahsildar. On the aforesaid ground the suit was filed for declaration of half share in the garden by the plaintiff. The defendants-respondents contested the case on the ground that the disputed garden belonged to the defendants. This property fell in the share of Jaggoo at the time of partition 50 years back from the date of filing of the suit. The trial Court after recording of evidence, recorded a finding that there was a partition in the family and this garden fell in the share of Jaggoo at the time of the partition and defendants inherited it after the death of Jaggoo. The trial Court after recording of evidence, recorded a finding that there was a partition in the family and this garden fell in the share of Jaggoo at the time of the partition and defendants inherited it after the death of Jaggoo. On filing appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court affirmed the aforesaid finding against which this appeal has been filed. Though the learned counsel for the appellants tried to assail the judgment and decree on the ground that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Courts below is erroneous and there is overwhelming evidence in the· case showing that this garden was kept joint between the parties. But from the perusal of the judgment and decree of both the Courts below and documentary evidence produced in the case, in which garden was recorded in the name of Jaggoo and both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence, recorded a finding that in the partition it fell in the share of Jaggoo, nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants showing any perversity or infirmity in the aforesaid finding. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference in the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. This appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.