JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Judgment & decree dated 22.3.1999 passed by the Learned District Judge, Keonjhar in T.A No. 29 of 1993 reversing the Judgment & decree dated 16.1.1993 passed by the Learned the then Sub- ordinate Judge, Keonjhar in T.S No. 3 of 1988, is assailed in this Second Appeal filed by Defendants of the said suit. 2. Respondent No. 1, as Plaintiff, filed T.S No. 3 of 1988 praying for declaration of her right, title & interest over the suit "C & C-1" schedule of lands for confirmation of possession & in the alternative for recovery of possession & for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering & disturbing in her possession over the suit scheduled lands & also for declaration that the alienation of "D" schedule lands made in favour of Defendant No. 1(f) by Defendant No. 1 (a) is invalid. 3. One Panu Barik was originally the sole Defendant. After his death the present Appellants were substituted as his legal heirs & successors. Bereft of unnecessary details the short facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication are as follows : 4. According to the Plaintiffs, Chintamani was the common ancestor of the parties. He was the recorded owner of lands more-fully described in "B" schedule of the plaint. Benudhar & Panu were his two sons. Plaintiff was the only daughter of Benudhar, whereas Defendant Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (e) were the legal heirs of original Defendant Panu Barik & Defendant No. 1(f) was the wife of Defendant No. 1 (a). As per the plaint case, after the death of Chintamani his two sons, i.e., Panu & Benudhar amicably partitioned the properties situated in three villages, i.e., Jamunapasi, Chandaposi & Sakarpul in the year 1972. In the said partition lands appertaining to "C & C-1" schedule were allotted to Benudhar, the father of the Plaintiff, & was in exclusive possession of the same. Benudhar died in the year 1971. After his death Plaintiff possessed the lands left by her father & also occupied the dwelling house. Unfortunately, during current settlement the lands of village Jamunaposi & Sankarpur were recorded jointly in the name of Plaintiff & original Defendant Panu, though separate 'patta' had been issued in respect of the lands situated at village Chandaposi . After his death Plaintiff possessed the lands left by her father & also occupied the dwelling house. Unfortunately, during current settlement the lands of village Jamunaposi & Sankarpur were recorded jointly in the name of Plaintiff & original Defendant Panu, though separate 'patta' had been issued in respect of the lands situated at village Chandaposi . Taking advantage of such joint recording, it was alleged, Panu with his two sons, created disturbances in the possession of the Plaintiff. Consequently the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. 5. Defendant No. 1(f) the widow of Panu did not contest the suit. Defendant Nos. 1,(a) to 1 (e) filed a joint written statement challenging maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, non-joinder of parties, res-judicata, estoppel etc. In the written -statement they have admitted that there was amicable partition between Panu & Benudhar 30 years back & by convenience parties were possessing separate parcels of lands. However, according to them there was never any partition by metes & bounds. It was further averred in the written statement that Plaintiff & late Panu Barik had received compensation amount jointly from the Railways towards the lands which were acquired in Land Acquisition proceedings. In short, according to the Defendants as there was no partition by metes & bounds the suit in the present form is not maintainable. 6. On the basis of the pleadings the Trial Court framed as many as seven issues. In order to substantiate her case, the Plaintiff got 3 witnesses examined & exhibited 9 documents, whereas the Defendants got 5 witnesses examined & exhibited 6 documents. The Trial Court after discussing the evidence in extenso answered all the issues in favour of the Plaintiff except issue Nos. 1 to 5, i.e., with regard to maintainability of the suit & declaration of right, title & interest of the Plaintiff over "C & C-1" schedule of lands, Relying upon the oral & documentary evidence it was held that the lands were never partitioned by metes & bounds & the suit for declaration of Plaintiff s right, title & interest over "C & C-1" schedule properties was not maintainable as the partition between Panu & Benudhar could not be established. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said decision the Plaintiff preferred T.A No. 29 of 1993. 7. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said decision the Plaintiff preferred T.A No. 29 of 1993. 7. Learned District Judge, Keonjhar after discussing the inter se pleadings & evidence came to the conclusion that there was a partition previously between Benudhar & Panu by metes & bounds & the Plaintiff successfully proved the same. On the basis of such conclusion the appeal was allowed. The said reversing Judgment & decree as stated earlier, are assailed in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the substantial question of law as enumerated in Ground Nos. J & N of the Memorandum of Appeal. 8. In course of hearing Learned Counsel for the Appellants took strain to convince this Court that in fact, the Lower Appellate Court committed irregularity in arriving at the conclusion that there was partition by metes & bounds. According to Learned Counsel neither there was any document in support of such partition nor was there any written instrument. It is submitted, rather forcefully, that after death of the common ancestor Chintamani, for the sake of convenience his two sons Benudhar & Panu possessed different parcels of land & other properties by mutual settlement though there was no partition by metes & bounds. It is further submitted that in course of Settlement operation lands have been recorded jointly which supports the case of Defendants that there was no partition. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by Railways towards the lands acquired was shared by both the parties which also reveals that there was no partition & the properties were owned jointly. On the basis of such submission, it is contended that the Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence & the Appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there was partition by metes & bounds & it is a fit case where the Second Appeal should be allowed. 9. The submissions made by Learned Counsel for the Appellants are strongly repudiated by Mr. Dash, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1. He submitted that a partition by metes & bounds cannot be presumed only because different co-sharers were in possession of different parcels of lands. In the case at hand, there is evidence to establish that there was a partition by metes & bounds inter se between the parties. Dash, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1. He submitted that a partition by metes & bounds cannot be presumed only because different co-sharers were in possession of different parcels of lands. In the case at hand, there is evidence to establish that there was a partition by metes & bounds inter se between the parties. The Appellate Court, it is stated has rightly assessed the evidence & the conclusion arrived at are just & proper. That apart whether there was partition by metes & bounds or is a pure question of fact, & while exercising power u/s 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court may not interfere with the same. 10. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. Perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, in the case at hand there is no document in support of partition between two sons of Chintamani being Panu & Benudhar. Law is well settled that a Hindu family should always be presumed to be joint, unless the contrary is proved. The burden lies on the person who claims prior partition to prove the fact of partition by metes & bounds. In the case at hand, according to the Plaintiff there was a partition by metes & bounds on the other according to Defendants there was only an amicable partition for the sake of convenience & the same do not amount to partition by metes & bounds. According to Learned Counsel for the Appellants to prove partition, it is not always necessary to establish that there was a separation by metes & bounds. In support of such submission he relied upon the decisions in the cases of Harum Patel v. Parikhita Patel reported in 64 (1987) C.L.T 448 & Anadi Naik Vs. Prahallad Naik and Others. On the other hand Learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that possession by amicable settlement for the sake of convenience, does not mean partition by metes & bounds. Such partition only shows the severance of joint status but not partition by metes & bounds. To understand the contentions raised by both the parties it would be prudent to know what partition is: Partition consists in a numerical division of the property in defining the shares of the coparceners in the joint property & an actual division of the property by metes & bounds is not necessary. To understand the contentions raised by both the parties it would be prudent to know what partition is: Partition consists in a numerical division of the property in defining the shares of the coparceners in the joint property & an actual division of the property by metes & bounds is not necessary. If the shares are defined whether by an agreement between the parties or otherwise then the partition is complete. The property ceases to be joint immediately after the shares are defined. Partition means a severance of joint status & therefore, it is a matter of individual volition. What is necessary to constitute a partition is therefore a definite, unequivocal indication of the intention of a member of a joint family to enjoy his share in severalty. To constitute severance, there must be an intimation, indication or representation of such intention, the method or manifestation may differ from case to case. It is implicit in this principle that this manifestation or declaration of intention should be to the knowledge of the persons affected. Once a member of a joint family has clearly & unequivocally intimated to the other members, his desire to severe himself from the joint family, his right to obtain & possess his share is unimpeachable whether or not they agree to a separation, & there is an immediate severance of the joint status. This intention to separate may be evinced in different ways, either by explicit declaration or by conduct. (see: the case of Smt. Krishnabai Ganpatrao Deshmukh v. Appa Saheb Tuljaram Rao AIR 1979 SC 1880 ). Keeping in view the aforesaid principles in mind, if the facts & evidence of the case in hand are adjudged, it appears that there was no document to establish partition by metes & bounds between Benudhar & Panu. Though P.Ws.1, 3 & 4, spoke about such partition, the Trial Court did not believe the statements on the other hand the Appellate Court after discussing the evidence in extenso came to the conclusion that the statements of the said witnesses coupled with other surrounding circumstances leads to an irresistible conclusion that there was a partition previously by metes & bounds & the witnesses of the Plaintiff have proved the same. In paragraph-11 of the Judgment the Appellate Court discussed the evidence & considering the inter se alienations & other factors like exchange of shares etc. In paragraph-11 of the Judgment the Appellate Court discussed the evidence & considering the inter se alienations & other factors like exchange of shares etc. held that the Plaintiff was successful in establishing that there was a partition by metes & bounds between Benudhar & Panu. 11. After going through the orders passed by the Appellate Court this Court finds no infirmity or illegality therein. That apart while exercising power u/s 100 of the CPC this Court should be slow to interfere with the finding of facts unless, it is satisfied that the Court below have misconstrued the evidence & or committed errors which are apparent. The findings arrived at by the Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence & the materials on record, the same do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or irregularity. This Court, therefore, feels that the same needs no interference. Consequently the Second Appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Final Result : Dismissed