JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has given a valid explanation for the defects pointed out by the Registry. It is submitted that respondent No.4 was a party-respondent in the writ petition. He is heir of Late Shri Manohar Lal, and since he was already a party as a respondent, it was not necessary to include him in the amended cause title in the writ petition. The defect will thus be treated to be removed. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. This intra-court Special Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 14.11.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5855/1997 (Manohar Lal (dead) through LRs. & Anr. Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors.), by which learned Single Judge has confirmed the judgment of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 23.07.1997, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1993 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, and upheld the judgment and decree dated 09.01.1986 passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, Laxmangarh, District Alwar, whereby the plaintiff-respondent's suit for declaration of khatedari rights and partition, in respect of 1/4 of the agricultural land measuring 21 bigha 7 biswa in khasra Nos.223, 225, 226, 227, 333, 1020, 1021 and 1022 at Village Ganduda, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, was decreed. 4. Learned Single Judge upheld the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue, by which it had set aside the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Board of Revenue had held, that there was no proof of partition between the ancestors of the appellants 150 years ago, or at any time before filing of the suit. The suit land was consistently recorded as joint holding between the family members. The burden to prove issue No.4, regarding oral partition, was on the defendants/respondents. They could not prove, either by documentary evidence, or even by oral evidence, that there was any partition in the family. The land was continuously recorded in the revenue records, as joint khatedari land. There was no explanation as to why steps were not taken for recording the partition, and the land to have fallen in the alleged respective shares, if there was, as alleged any oral partition between the ancestors of the parties. 5. The land was continuously recorded in the revenue records, as joint khatedari land. There was no explanation as to why steps were not taken for recording the partition, and the land to have fallen in the alleged respective shares, if there was, as alleged any oral partition between the ancestors of the parties. 5. The Revenue Board further found that a suit for permanent injunction was filed in the year 1974, under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which was decreed on 30.05.1978, and against which the appeal was dismissed on 04.08.1978, and the second appeal was dismissed on 27.08.1984, in which the respondents were injuncted from interfering in the land, on the findings that the land is still recorded as joint khatedari land. The Assistant Collector had thus rightly decreed the suit for partition. 6. The Revenue Board further found that the plea, that the land belongs to the Temple, which could not have been partitioned, cannot be accepted, as this plea was taken during the course of hearing, whereas the defendant had claimed the entire land as his own khatedari, after oral partition in the family about 150 years ago. 7. The Revenue Board further held that the continuous possession of the defendants, cannot defeat the claim of the partition, so long as the land was recorded as joint khatedari land. On such undivided land, the cultivation made by one of the co-owners, is for the benefit of all other co-owners. 8. Learned Single Judge has upheld the findings of the Revenue Board. It was argued before learned Single Judge that the defendants are in continuous possession of the land, for a long period of time, and thus, adverse possession can be claimed against the plaintiff. It was held that the stand is of no avail, for the exclusion of the right of the defendants on the khatedari land, as was evident from the revenue records. The suit for partition under Section 53 of the Act of 1955 was not liable to be dismissed, on the ground of res judicata, as the previous suit under Section 188 of the Act of 1955, was for permanent injunction, based on possession. 9. The suit for partition under Section 53 of the Act of 1955 was not liable to be dismissed, on the ground of res judicata, as the previous suit under Section 188 of the Act of 1955, was for permanent injunction, based on possession. 9. Learned Single Judge did not find force in the contention that the findings recorded in the previous suit for permanent injunction, would be binding in the suit for partition, and in which the defence of oral partition was not established. 10. Learned Single Judge found that there was no explanation to the fact that if partition had taken place 150 years ago, why the land was continued to be recorded as joint khatedari land, despite settlements made in the long period of time. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the partition was admitted by some of the co-owners. He however, has not been able to point out any such specific admission, that the parties are in separate possession after partition, of their respective shares, and further, the reason as to why such partition, if it was made so long ago, was not recorded in the revenue records, despite settlements. 12. It is submitted that PW-1 Ram Sahai had admitted in his statement that he had received 8 bighas of land in Village Khedapati, which was recorded in the name of his father Murlidhar, and which according to learned counsel appearing for the appellants, establishes that there was a partition, in which the plaintiff's father Murlidhar had received the land in Village Khedapati. The discussion of the evidence of Ram Sahai does not indicate to that effect. He had stated in his statement that Vidya, widow of Bhaura, had died. His heirs are Manoharlal and Hari. Sixty years ago, the muafi land was received in Village Khedapati, and that, 8 bighas of land was of his father, Murlidhar, which was not left behind. This statement cannot be taken to be an admission, that 8 bighas of land was received by Murlidhar, the father of the plaintiff, in partition in a different village. 13. Sixty years ago, the muafi land was received in Village Khedapati, and that, 8 bighas of land was of his father, Murlidhar, which was not left behind. This statement cannot be taken to be an admission, that 8 bighas of land was received by Murlidhar, the father of the plaintiff, in partition in a different village. 13. We do not find any error of law in the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge, that, if the partition had taken place about more than 100 years ago, the land could not have been recorded jointly, in the name of family members in the revenue records, and the reason as to why, the partition was not effected in the revenue records, was not established with any cogent evidence. 14. The findings recorded by learned Single Judge, confirming the judgment of the Board of Revenue, are findings of fact, which do not require interference in this fourth inning in the Special Appeal. 15. There is no merit in this Special Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The interim application is disposed of.