JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. PLAINTIFF -appellant Vishav Raj Singh (predecessor of the present appellants), hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 1.12.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur, in Civil Appeal No.199-CA/13 of 2000, titled as Harshwardhan Singh and others versus Vishav Raj Singh, whereby judgment and decree dated 25.8.2000, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Nahan, in Civil Suit No.10/1 of 2000/99, titled as Vishav Raj Singh versus Harsh Vardhan Singh, stands reversed. 2. APPEAL was admitted on the following substantial question of law : If the parties have once agreed to keep a part of the property as joint whether the partition thereof cannot be claimed at a subsequent stage? Plaintiff Vishav Raj Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, filed a suit for partition of the suit land, against defendant Shri Harshwardhan Singh, present respondent No.1. 3. BASED on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of partition as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit property has already been partitioned in a family settlement in the year 1981 as alleged, If so its effect? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is vexatious and false as alleged? OPD 4. Relief. 4. TRIAL Court decreed the suit in the following terms : "In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and accordingly I pass a preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit land to the extent of half share of the suit land comprised of Khatta Kahttauni No.102/274, Khasra No.850 measuring 4.40 Sq. meters, 851 measuring 13.75 Sq. meters total measuring 18.15 Sq. meter with costs of the suit. Preliminary decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file after completion be consigned to General Record room." Aggrieved thereof, defendants filed appeal, which stands accepted by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur. 5. FROM the record, it is quite apparent that the original parties had proved the factum of prior agreement of partition of their land having been entered into between them. Preliminary decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file after completion be consigned to General Record room." Aggrieved thereof, defendants filed appeal, which stands accepted by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur. 5. FROM the record, it is quite apparent that the original parties had proved the factum of prior agreement of partition of their land having been entered into between them. Predecessors-in-interest of the parties had agreed to keep the land in question, which was to be used as a drain and a common path/stairs case, as joint. 6. IT is not in dispute that the parties to the present appeal are tenants in common and as such they are bound by the terms agreed upon by their predecessors-in-interest. Terms of earlier partition arrived at cannot be re-opened subsequently. In this regard, law is evidently clear. (See: Ratnam Chettiar and others versus S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar and others, (1976) 1 SCC 214 ; Kale and others versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1976) 3 SCC 119 ; Anil Kumar Mitra and others versus Ganendra Nath Mitra and others, (1997) 9 SCC 725 ; and Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. and others versus Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd., (2006) 8 SCC 531 ). Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 7. HENCE, for all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal stands dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.