Judgment :- Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This is a second appeal filed by the defendants against judgment of affirmance arising out of a suit for partition. Undisputedly, the property belonged to one Manick Chandra Bez. Manick Chandra Bez died intestate in the year 1934. The property was inherited by his two sons Hadipada and Chandi Charan. Haripada died sometime in 1957. Chandi Charan is the plaintiff while the heirs and legal representatives of Haripada are the defendants. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition. The defendants jointly contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. It was alleged that there was a previous oral family partition between the parties in 1962. In such partition, the defendants got northern side of the suit property while the plaintiff got southern side of the suit property. A faint allegation was made that the defendants acquired title by adverse possession ousting the plaintiff. Both the courts below concurrently found, as findings of fact, that the previous oral family partition could not be proved. The appeal was admitted for hearing, but no substantial question of law was framed. Subsequently, however, by order dated August 26, 2002, following four questions of law were formulated: “(1) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has acted in terms of the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring the Court to give its own reasonings in affirming the judgment? (2) Whether the oral partition without aid of any writing and map etc. is possible and permissible? (3) Whether the splitting up for holding indicates that there has been partition as alleged? (4) Whether the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court below is perverse for non-consideration of material evidence and materials on record?” Mr. Asit Bhattacharya-III, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, strenuously argues that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as, already, there has been a previous partition between the parties. The defendant no. 1, who deposed as defendants’ witness no. 1, categorically admitted that he had no paper to show that there was any oral family partition in 1962. It was alleged that the family arrangement was made in 1962 between Haripada and Chandi Charan. The defendant no. 1, who deposed as defendants’ witness no. 1, categorically admitted that he had no paper to show that there was any oral family partition in 1962. It was alleged that the family arrangement was made in 1962 between Haripada and Chandi Charan. Such allegation was not rightly believed by the courts below inasmuch as Hadipada died in the year 1957 and, therefore, there could not have been any oral family partition in 1962 between him and his brother. An amicable arrangement amongst the co-owners should not be confused with an oral partition. A mere arrangement as to possession of convenience of the parties is not a partition by metes and bounds. Such amicable arrangement can never be operative and binding for all time to come. Such arrangement does not destroy the joint character of the properties nor bars a suit for partition at the instance of one of the co-owners dissatisfied with the arrangement. The burden lies upon the party, who asserts oral partition to prove partition. The intention of the parties has to be gathered from their subsequent conducts. In this case, the defendants have miserably failed to prove that there has been any oral partition amongst the co-owners. In the absence of materials-on-record, it is not possible for this Court to accept the contention of Mr. Asit Bhattacharya-III, learned advocate for the appellants, that there has been any oral partition between the co-owners. Mere splitting of holdings for payment of municipal rates and taxes is not a partition by metes and bounds. I am of the opinion that the learned judge in the lower appellate court rightly affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. There was no deviation of the requirements of Order XLI, rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has formulated the points for determination and decided the points with reasons. The judgment and decree passed by the learned judge in the lower appellate court are not perverse. He has discussed all the points raised before him; considered the materials on record and rightly affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Since, I am of the opinion that this appeal involves no substantial questions of law and there is no scope to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below, I dismiss the appeal. Since, I am of the opinion that this appeal involves no substantial questions of law and there is no scope to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below, I dismiss the appeal. However, the learned judge in the trial court is directed to complete the final decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Let the lower courts records be go down immediately by special messenger at the costs of the respondents. Let such special messenger’s cost be put in by Friday next. I make no order as to costs.