This Civil First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of District Judge, Kathua on 9th of November, 1991 rendered in suit captioned as Madan Gopal v. Dewan Chand & Ors., wherein partition by metes and bounds of the properties i.e., eight shops and a 'Khola' was sought. 2. One Sh. Kanshi Ram, common ances­tor of the parties, had three sons namely Sh. Nathu Ram, Sh. Munshi Ram and Sh. Ram Rattan. It is the said Munshi Ram who had left behind various properties including the suit property, i.e., eight shops and a 'Khola' located in town Kathua. Same property is claimed to be joint as having been inherited from the common ancestor (Sh. Kanshi Ram). The respondents (defendants) in their pleadings (written statement) contended that the partition had taken place on Poh, 1984 (Bk) and additionally contended that the fac-tum of partition is further supported by the conduct of the appellant (plaintiff) himself, as regarding rest of the ancestral properties no partition has been sought. On the basis of the respective pleadings, firstly vide order dated 10th of March, 1987 following three issues were framed :- 1. Whether the suit cannot proceed be­cause the suit property has already been par­titioned? OPD 2. In case, Issue No.1 is not proved, what are the shares of the parties in respect of the suit property? OPP 3. Relief. 3. When the case was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Kathua, further fol­lowing issues vide order dated 21st of Octo­ber, 1988 were framed :- (a) Whether the suit has not been prop­erly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valua­tion? OPD (b) Whether the suit is hit by the prin­ciple of res judicata? OPD (c) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD (d) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD All the aforesaid issues i.e., (a) to (d) were treated as preliminary issues. 4. Un-assailed determination of the said Issues (a) to (d) vide order dated 6th of Sep­tember' 1990 and 17th of May, 1991 give rise to the position of reverting back to the determination of Issues No. 1, 2 & 3 as were framed by this Court vide order dated 10th of Mach, 1987. 5. 4. Un-assailed determination of the said Issues (a) to (d) vide order dated 6th of Sep­tember' 1990 and 17th of May, 1991 give rise to the position of reverting back to the determination of Issues No. 1, 2 & 3 as were framed by this Court vide order dated 10th of Mach, 1987. 5. The vital issue which has survived for determination is the Issue No.1, i.e., "as to whether the suit property has already been partitioned". In support of and against, both oral and documentary evidence has been pro­duced. 6. Learned trial Court has scrutinized the evidence both oral and documentary with all care and has returned valid and legal find­ings thereon. 7. On re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence recorded, what emerges is that the suit property has been in possession of the respondents (defendants) right from the year Poh, 1984 (Bk) because on 1st Poh, 1984 (Bk) three sons of Sh. Kanshi Ram namely Sh. Nathu Ram, Sh. Munshi Ram and Sh. Ram Rattan, executed an Agreement, where under Sh. Bhagat Ram and Sh. Bali Ram Gandamal were appointed as Arbitrators for partitioning the joint property. It is in the said Agreement, the parties (three brothers) ac­knowledged that the decision of the Arbitra­tors would be final and binding upon them. The stand of the respondents (defendants) that right from the date of partition by the Arbitrators all the parties remained in exclu­sive possession of their respective properties and also started to do their business sepa­rately. 8. The position of the thirty years old document (Agreement) which has remained un-challenged has been correctly taken note of by the trial Court, in the light of the law applicable. Fistly, the appointment of Abitrators for dividing the joint family prop­erty amounts to severance of the joint status of the family, which is a settled principle of law. This position is supported by Mulla's Principle of Hindu Law. Section 325 provides that appointment of Arbitrators for division of the property amounts to the severance of joint status of the family. Further, it provides that the partition operates irrespective of its division by metes and bounds. Same posi­tion is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment captioned Raghavamma v. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 , which has been rightly relied upon by the trial Court. 9. Further, it provides that the partition operates irrespective of its division by metes and bounds. Same posi­tion is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment captioned Raghavamma v. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 , which has been rightly relied upon by the trial Court. 9. Non-inclusion of the entire property, as was joint, left behind by the common an­cestor, in the plaint by itself would indicate that there has been the severance of joint sta­tus. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to include all the joint property and seek the partition. Same is the law enunciated in the book 'Principle of Hindu Law' by Mulla, Section 333 has been quoted by the learned trial Court which provides that the general rule is that where the suit for partition is brought by a coparcener against other coparceners, it should embrace the whole family property, however, there are excep­tions for non-inclusion. None of the excep­tions were available to the appellant (plain­tiff). 10. Learned trial Court has referred to various cases, which the parties, more par­ticularly the plaintiff, after Poh, 1984 (Bk) has instituted individually so as to show sev­erance of joint family, otherwise, there would not have been litigation on behalf of the ap­pellant (plaintiff) concerning his own indi­vidual right to the exclusion of the other members of the family. The trial Court has noticed all such cases in detail wherein the plaintiff (appellant) as an individual has been litigating concerning various properties as detailed therein. 11. The most important point so as to show that there has been partition in pursuance to the Agreement appointing the Arbitrators for division of the property in the year Poh, 1984 (Bk) is that the common ancestor Sh. Kanshi Ram admittedly had three houses in Kathua town. Appellant (plaintiff) has not prayed for partition of those three houses, why so, be­cause he is in possession of one of the houses i.e., his own share. It means that the parti­tion had taken place. 12. Though the appellant (plaintiff) had projected that there was no agreement to ap­point the Arbitrators but the document (Agreement) which is thirty years old placed on record having come from the genuine possession has been correctly taken note of by the trial Court. It means that the parti­tion had taken place. 12. Though the appellant (plaintiff) had projected that there was no agreement to ap­point the Arbitrators but the document (Agreement) which is thirty years old placed on record having come from the genuine possession has been correctly taken note of by the trial Court. Admissibility of the said document, by no means has been questioned, that apart, the genuineness of the said thirty years old document has to be presumed as ordained by Section 19 of the Evidence Act. 13. Why the appellant (plaintiff) had sought partition of only 08 shops and a 'Khola' and not the other properties, is a question, which has remained to be answered by the appellant (plaintiff) and the resultant effect is that rest of the properties are in the possession of the parties to the exclusion of each other, which in turn would mean that after appointment of the Arbitrators division of the joint property had taken place and the parties have taken their respective shares, partition vis-a-vis commercial establishment i.e., 08 shops and a 'Khola' appears to be with a design so as to open the doors for litigative process and to get something out of nothing. 14. On careful appraisal of the facts as well as findings and the transactions under­taken by the appellant (plaintiff) in his indi­vidual capacity after the year Poh, 1984 (Bk) are suggestive of the fact that the partition had taken place therefore, there is no question of seeking partition. The cogent, well reasoned findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the proper appreciation of the evidence is found to be quite apposite, so does not call for any interference. 15. Dismissal of the suit is and could be only conclusion as has been rightly done by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the ap­pellant (plaintiff) simply projected that there was no evidence so as to conclude that there has been partition in the year Poh, 1984 (Bk). Learned counsel for appellant (plaintiff) also projected that the reference to the various cases as litigated by the appellant (plaintiff) has got no bearing on the question of parti­tion, but the submission of the learned coun­sel for the appellant (plaintiff) could not get support from the records. Learned counsel for appellant (plaintiff) also projected that the reference to the various cases as litigated by the appellant (plaintiff) has got no bearing on the question of parti­tion, but the submission of the learned coun­sel for the appellant (plaintiff) could not get support from the records. The finding as re­corded by the learned trial Court vis-a-vis genuineness of the thirty years old document executed by three brothers i.e., three sons of Sh. Kanshi Ram, even till date has remained to be challenged and nothing on record has been produced so as to controvert the posi­tion of the document, instead the subsequent conduct of the parties, more particulaly that of the appellant (plaintiff), in showing sev­erance. Holding exclusively other properties and house out of three houses left behind by Sh. Kanshi Ram, leaves no scope for accept­ing the submission of the learned counsel that the suit property is joint. 16. The findings recorded on Issue No. 1 itself takes care of Issue No. 2 i.e., when the property is partitioned, there is no question of ascertaining the shares of the parties in the suit property. 17. No illegality, perversity or error on proper appreciation of the evidence, both documentary and oral, is forthcoming. There­fore, the judgment and decree impugned passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kathua is upheld. 18. Appeal being devoid of merit is dis­missed. Decree sheet be prepared accord­ingly. 19. Copy of the judgment and decree be certified to the trial Court. Trial Court record be sent back. Appeal dismissed.