JUDGMENT : The appellant in this appeal has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Bolangir in Title Suit No.8/4 of 2003-06 confirming the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bolangir in Title Suit No.8 of 1997. 2. The respondent nos.1 to 6 as the plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition of their properties. The appellant being the defendant no.1 with other defendants contested the suit pleading inter alia that there was a prior partition of the ancestral properties coming down from the hands of Markanda Padhan to the hands of his two sons namely Gaja Padhan and Bhuja Padhan and that there was a partition between Gaja Padhan on one hand and the sons of Bhuja Padhan on the other in respect of all the joint family movable and immovable properties. On this ground they resisted the prayer for partition in metes and bounds. They had also indicated that the property described in schedule ‘A’ of the written statement had been allotted to the share of Gaja and schedule ‘B’ properties were allotted to the members of the branch of Bhuja. 3. On the above rival pleadings the trial court has rightly taken up issue no.2 for decision that as to whether there was any prior partition of properties in metes and bounds. As it appears in the case with regard to prior partition except oral evidence, no documentary evidence had been let in by the defendants though the burden was on them to dispel the presumption against said partition in metes and bounds and in view of their specific case of prior partition. The certified copy of the record of right concerning the suit land reflects joint recording. Therefore, analyzing all these, the trial court had decreed the suit preliminarily. On an appeal being preferred by the present appellant, the lower appellate court, the same has also not provided any fruit of success for him since the lower appellate court has also on independent assessment of evidence has arrived at the same conclusion that though the parties were residing separately for convenience and enjoying some portions of the properties yet there was no partition of their properties in metes and bounds and dismissed the appeal. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the oral evidence as regards the prior partition in the line of long standing conduct of the parties in residing separately enjoying separate portion of the properties and making necessary developments over the properties in their respective possession from time to time have not at all been appreciated in their proper prospective. He further contends that the courts below have not gone to examine the evidence as regards the possession of the properties in respect of the property as indicated in separate schedules in the written statement. So, those, according to him, are the substantial questions of law standing to be certified for the purpose of admission of this appeal. 5. In the suit for partition where the defendants have taken the plea of prior partition, on the face of the documentary evidence (Ext.1) showing joint recording of the suit land without any further noting therein, the burden of proof was heavily upon them to establish their case in rebutting the presumption against the partition in metes and bounds. As it appears, except leading oral evidence, no such documentary evidence has been tendered so as to derive strong inference of prior partition of the properties in metes and bounds. The evidence as laid though makes out a case of separate living of the parties with separate enjoyments, carrying out separate activities including developments etc., yet those are all compatible with a case of separation for convenience but not with a case of partition in metes and bounds. There is even no evidence of separate payment of rent to the State, separate creation of holdings of the houses etc. It is also not shown that for a long period, the parties have been entering into inter-se transactions concerning the properties in their respective possession or even with others. 6. In view of all these, this Court finds no perversity in the concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the courts below on issue no.2, which has practically led for passing the preliminary for partition. 6. In view of all these, this Court finds no perversity in the concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the courts below on issue no.2, which has practically led for passing the preliminary for partition. In view of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant fails as also it is further seen that the courts below have been very careful in directing for giving respect to and bestow due equitable consideration to the possession of the properties by the parties as of convenience as also the developments, if any, made while effecting the partition as far as possible and practicable. 7. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed as it does not merit admission. No order as to cost.