Judgment Ajay Tewari, J. 1. Cm No.6921-C of 2008 for the reasons recorded, delay of 6 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.6922-C of 2008 2. For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Persons mentioned in para 2 of the application are impleaded as legal representatives of respondent-defendant No.4 Darshan singh son of Pakhar Singh. Registry to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. 3. This is an appeal against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for partition of land. Both the courts have found as a fact that the property in dispute was partitioned between the nine brothers way back in 1974-75 and that thereafter the parties have continued in possession of their respective shares. 4. The following questions have been proposed:- I. Whether partition become valid and final only if the same be brought to the notice of concerned revenue authorities and khata be separated in revenue record? ii. Whether co-sharer continues to be joint owner in the khata/land unless joint land be divided by metes and bounds? III. Whether non disputing the correctness of jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 (Ex. D-2) by the respondent-defendants gives the inference that suit land is joint? IV. Whether the mis-reading of the pleading and documentary evidence in the light of oral evidence and perversity of finding arrived at by the learned courts below amounts to substantial question o law, which clearly and candidly gives power to this Honble Court to interfere? 5 In respect of question No. I, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Arjan Singh V/s. Hem Raj reported as 1986 RRR 458. That was a case where one of the brothers sold the entire property belonging to the other brothers also by relying on an oral partition which was denied by the other brothers. It was in that context that this court held as follows:- ". . . . . The vendees plea was that there was an oral partition in the year 1953-54 as is recited in their sale deed, but that fact is not borne out from any other evidence. Therefore, such an oral partition cannot be accepted. The trial Court, in reading the statement of one of the plaintiffs to mean that agricultural land was partitioned. . The vendees plea was that there was an oral partition in the year 1953-54 as is recited in their sale deed, but that fact is not borne out from any other evidence. Therefore, such an oral partition cannot be accepted. The trial Court, in reading the statement of one of the plaintiffs to mean that agricultural land was partitioned. The learned counsel for the vendees could not read a line from the statement of the plaintiff to the effect that agricultural land was even partitioned between the parties or along with other co-sharers. If that had been so, it would have been duly recorded in the revenue records. " 6. However, in the instant case the witnesses of the appellant themselves admit that partition between the parties had taken place more than 30 years ago ; that originally the appellant had been given two portions of land and that he had exchanged one of them with another brother. In this view of the settled situation, in my opinion, the judgment relied upon would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. As regards questions No II and iii once the courts below have come to a finding of fact that the partition between the parties was effected more than 30 years ago and that in fact all the brothers including the appellant had constructed their houses on their own shares these questions pale into insignificance. Question No. (IV) is a general question which requires no detailed discussion. 7. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed.