Manoj Misra, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kuldeep Saxena for the respondent. 2. This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No.106 of 2004 arising out of Original Suit No.321 of 2001. 3. Original Suit No.321 of 2001 was instituted for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession and ownership of the plaintiff over the property described in the plaint, which constituted a part of House No.256 situated at Village Arthala, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. 4. Plaintiff's case was that the original owner of the property was Mange Ram, who had four sons, namely Salek Chandra, Virendra, Naresh and Rajendra (the plaintiff). It was pleaded that Salek Chandra, in the life time of his father, had separated from the family. On the death of Mange Ram his widow Ram Kali and three sons, namely, Virendra, Naresh and Rajendra (the plaintiff) became joint owners of House No.256. Whereas Virendra and Naresh died during the life time of Ram Kali. Defendant nos.1 and 2 are sons of Virendra whereas defendant nos.3 to 5 are sons of Naresh. It was claimed that Ram Kali, Rajendra (the plaintiff), the defendant nos.1 and 2 as well as defendant nos.3 to 5 became owners of the house in question. It was claimed that during the life time of Ram Kali there had been a partition amongst the aforesaid owners, consequently, each one of them came in separate physical possession of their respective portions. It was claimed that in order to avoid any dispute with regards to the partition, a registered Will dated 09.07.1993 was executed by Ram Kali (widow of Mange Ram- mother of the plaintiff) whereby the partition as already in existence was duly codified and, as such, the suit property thus came to the share of the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondents had no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the said property. 5. Defendants contested the suit claiming, inter alia, that Mange Ram, during his life time, had partitioned the property amongst his heirs and that the property in question had not come to the share of the plaintiff, whereas it was the defendants who were the owners thereof. 5. Defendants contested the suit claiming, inter alia, that Mange Ram, during his life time, had partitioned the property amongst his heirs and that the property in question had not come to the share of the plaintiff, whereas it was the defendants who were the owners thereof. The defendants challenged the execution of the Will by Smt. Ram Kali as also as her right to bequeath the property in question in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. 6. Trial Court framed various issues and came to the conclusion that the defendants were not able to establish that partition took place during the life time of Mange Ram. It also found that the Will, that was executed by Smt. Ram Kali, was duly proved by testimony of an attesting witness and that on the basis of the Will the parties were allocated separate portions under the Will and, as such, the plaintiff-appellant became the owner of the property in suit. The suit was accordingly decreed. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants went in appeal. The Appellate Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the defendants were able to prove that there was a partition otherwise than by way of Will, which was reflected by exclusive possession of the parties as proved from the Commissioner's report. The Appellate Court took the pleading of the plaintiff into consideration and found that in para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant had pleaded partition during the life time of his mother Ram Kali, whereas no such partition was indicated in the Will that was allegedly executed by Ram Kali. Accordingly, it disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that he became owner of the disputed portion on the basis of the Will. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the execution of the Will was duly proved by examination of the attesting witness and that there was no justification for the court below to discard the Will. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that under the Will the property in suit was allocated to the plaintiff-appellant, therefore, the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court stands vitiated. 9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that under the Will the property in suit was allocated to the plaintiff-appellant, therefore, the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court stands vitiated. 9. In the memorandum of appeal the following substantial questions of law were proposed for being formulated by the court for hearing of the appeal:- (i) Whether the registered Will dated 09.07.1993 executed by mother of the plaintiff-appellant is not valid? (ii) Whether both the parties, plaintiff and defendants are not residing in property in dispute on the basis of Will? 10. I have carefully considered the judgment of the courts below, the pleadings of the parties and the Will in question, which have been brought on record, by means of an affidavit in support of the stay application. From the Will, I find that Ram Kali (widow of Mange Ram), in the Will, though stated that the property in question was purchased by Mange Ram, but she did not state that the entire property devolved upon her exclusively either under any family settlement amongst the heirs of Mange Ram or on the basis of any Will executed by Mange Ram in her favour. Admittedly, Mange Ram had four sons, namely, Salek Chandra, Virendra, Naresh and Rajendra (the plaintiff) apart from his widow, Ram Kali, as his legal heirs. There is no statement either in the plaint or in the Will executed by Ram Kali to show that on the death of Mange Ram the property in question had come to the exclusive share of Ram Kali either through family partition or through a Will executed by Mange Ram. Rather in paragraph 4 of the plaint there is a statement that on death of Mange Ram his widow and his three sons became joint owners. In the given circumstances, even if it is assumed that the Will was executed by Ram Kali, the Will was inoperative inasmuch as Ram Kali had no right to bequeath a specific portion of the property. Further more, the Will does not indicate or record any previous partition amongst the joint owners. 11. In the given circumstances, even if it is assumed that the Will was executed by Ram Kali, the Will was inoperative inasmuch as Ram Kali had no right to bequeath a specific portion of the property. Further more, the Will does not indicate or record any previous partition amongst the joint owners. 11. Thus, as far as question no.1 is concerned, I am of the view that proof of the Will was not relevant inasmuch as Ram Kali had no right to partition the property through her Will, as she, at best, having inherited the estate of Mange Ram along with her sons, was just a co-owner and had no right to bequeath a specific portion to any of her sons. So far as any previous partition amongst the heirs of Mange Ram is concerned that has not been mentioned in the Will. The plaintiff-appellant has also failed to bring on record any such cogent evidence to establish that a previous partition had taken place, which was reflected in the Will. The trial court only on the basis of the Will concluded that the plaintiff was the owner in exclusive possession of the suit property, which was not justified for the reasons recorded above. The partition, as pleaded by the defendants, during the life time of Mange Ram, has been accepted by the lower Appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to cross examine the defendants witnesses, who had proved that during the life time of Mange Ram, there had been a partition. This finding of the lower appellate court has not been subjected to challenge in this appeal. 12. So far as the question no.2, as formulated in the grounds of appeal is concerned, I am of the view that it is a pure question of fact, which falls outside the scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that no substantial question of law is involved for adjudication of this appeal, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed summarily. _