JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - C. M. No. 12912-C of 2011 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit of the counsel, delay of 30 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 12913-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Harinder Singh – one of three legal representatives of original plaintiff Gurnam Singh (since deceased) has filed the instant second appeal after the plaintiff’s legal representatives remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Plaintiff’s case is that there was 186 kanals 10 marlas joint land of the plaintiff along with Kala Singh and others. There was mutual partition among the co-sharers, according to which suit land measuring 101 kanals 03 marlas, out of aforesaid joint land, fell to the share of plaintiff and Kala Singh. On death of Kala Singh, he was succeeded by Gurdial Singh and Surta Singh and on their death, defendants no.3 to 12 are their successors. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed that he and defendants no.3 to 12 are exclusive owners in possession of 101 kanals 03 marlas land in suit. Plaintiff sought declaration to this effect and also claimed permanent injunction restraining defendants no.1 and 2 from dispossessing the plaintiff and defendants no.3 to 12 from the suit land forcibly and illegally. 3. Only defendants no.1 and 2 contested the suit. They admitted that 186 kanals 10 marlas land was joint land, in which plaintiff is co-sharer to the extent of 1/6th share. Similarly, defendants no.3 to 8, as successors of Gurdial Singh, are co-sharers to the extent of 1/6th share and defendants no.9 to 12, as successors of Surta Singh, are co-sharers to the extent of 1/6th share in the total joint land. It was thus alleged that plaintiff and defendants no.3 to 12 are owners in possession of 93 kanals 05 marlas land out of total joint land measuring 186 kanals 10 marlas, whereas defendants no.1 and 2, in equal share, are owners in possession of the remaining half share of the total joint land and their share also comes to 93 kanals 05 marlas. Alleged private partition was strongly repudiated. It was denied that plaintiff and defendants no.3 to 12 are exclusive owners in possession of the suit land measuring 101 kanals 03 marlas out of the total joint land. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Alleged private partition was strongly repudiated. It was denied that plaintiff and defendants no.3 to 12 are exclusive owners in possession of the suit land measuring 101 kanals 03 marlas out of the total joint land. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran, vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2009, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff’s legal representatives has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2011. Feeling aggrieved, only Harinder Singh – one of three legal representatives of the plaintiff, has filed the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Whole emphasis on behalf of the appellant is on mutation no.770 entered in the year 1954 regarding alleged private partition. However, the said mutation was never sanctioned nor given effect to in the revenue record. The instant suit was instituted on 03.04.2004 i.e. 50 years after the entry of the said mutation, but during this long period of five decades, the said mutation was never sanctioned nor it was reflected in the revenue record. Consequently, merely on the basis of entry of the said mutation, which was never sanctioned, it cannot be said that there was any private partition among the co-sharers of the total joint land. On the contrary, non-sanctioning of the said mutation regarding alleged private partition and non-reflection thereof in the revenue record for five long decades would depict that there was no such private partition. If there had been any such mutual private partition, which was even reported to the Patwari, there would have been no hitch in sanctioning the mutation. The non-sanctioning of the mutation depicts that there was no such mutual partition and the other co-sharers did not agree to the same. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, it may be added that partition proceedings for partition of the joint suit land are pending in the Revenue Court and in the said proceedings, right from Assistant Collector to Collector and Commissioner, the plea of alleged private partition has been negatived. 8. Oral evidence of alleged private partition led by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove the same. The said oral evidence has also been rebutted by oral evidence of the contesting defendants. 9. 8. Oral evidence of alleged private partition led by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove the same. The said oral evidence has also been rebutted by oral evidence of the contesting defendants. 9. Counsel for the appellant, relying on two judgments of this Court namely Mohan Singh vs. Lachhman Singh reported as 1993 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 24 and Bhagwan Ram vs. Brij Lal reported as 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 349, contended that oral partition of agricultural land is also valid partition. The contention is misconceived. In the case of Mohan Singh (supra), partition was given effect to and was accepted by the parties for some time. It is not so in the instant case. Judgment in the case of Bhagwan Ram (supra) rather goes against the contention of counsel for the appellant. In that case, it was held with reference to Sections 111 and 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 that implementation of family partition in revenue record is necessary. In the instant case, however, the alleged mutual or family private partition was never implemented in the revenue record. In the case of Bhagwan Ram (supra), it was further observed that if the co-sharers admit the separation of their shares and possession of their respective shares since long, presumption of family partition may be raised. In the instant case, however, contesting defendants no. 1 and 2 have not admitted the separation of their shares and possession of respective shares since long. Consequently, bothe the judgments are not of any help to the appellant. 10. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below negativing the plea of plaintiff regarding private partition. The said finding of fact is based on proper analysis and appreciation of evidence led by both the parties. The said finding, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. The said finding is also not based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. It is a pure finding of fact, which does not call for interference in second appeal. On the contrary, the said finding of fact is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties. 11. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. On the contrary, the said finding of fact is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties. 11. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. --------------