JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. Plaintiff/appellant and defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 are real brothers. Plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction with allegations that the land left by his father was earlier partitioned on 27.1.2003 which was acknowledged on an affidavit on 4.6.2003. Plaintiff prayed that his share may be accepted as per aforesaid partition and he may be declared Bhumiswami and occupant accordingly. Perpetual injunction was also sought against defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 restraining them from interfering into plaintiff's possession as per aforesaid partition. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 on the ground that no partition had taken place and was not given effect to. 4. Learned trial Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant with a finding that plaintiff has failed to prove partition, as alleged in the plaint. Appeal against the same is also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree hence present appeal. 5. Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit has been dismissed with perversity inasmuch as entire material evidence has not been taken into consideration in correct perspective. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. It is further admitted by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court that pursuant to dismissal of plaintiff's suit, a partition of agricultural land has taken place under section 178 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 in the Court of Tahsildar Karera. Shri Pannalal, respondent No.2 is personally presenting Court. Shri Santosh Agrawal on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 and the respondent No.2 Pannalal showed their magnanimity by making a statement at bar before this Court that the plaintiff/appellant may choose any of the share as per partition effected by Tahsildar and the same would be given to him and the remaining two shares would be retained by respondents No.1 and 2. 8. Considering the aforesaid and the material on record, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. Appeal being devoid of substantial question of law is hereby dismissed, summarily. 9. 8. Considering the aforesaid and the material on record, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. Appeal being devoid of substantial question of law is hereby dismissed, summarily. 9. However, it is directed that, if the plaintiff/appellant wants to choose any other share, which is not allotted to him by Tahsildar, he shall make an appropriate application before Tahsildar within a period of one month from today, along with the certified copy of this order, after providing the copy of the application to respondents No.1 and 2 or their counsel. In case, if such an application is not submitted, the offer would cease to operate after expiry of one month. 10. Appeal stands dismissed summarily with above-mentioned direction.