JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 4.5.2005 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2003. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for possession by way of partition in respect of house and cattle shed comprising Khata No. 24 min, Khatauni No. 51 min, Abadi Tika, Khasra No. 267 measuring 4 Kanal 17 Marla, situate in village Tiyan, Tappa Lagwalti, Tehsil and District Hamirur, HP, as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 1987-88. House existed on the suit land measuring 28x18 feet comprising two rooms double storeyed, slate-posh and a cow shed behind the house measuring 18x11 feet single room. It is averred in the plaint that the house in suit was jointly owned by the parties and plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had half shares in the house as well as in cow shed and as such house and cow shed were liable to be partitioned according to the shares of the parties. 3. Suit was contested by the appellant-defendant No.1 namely Ram Chand (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No.1' for convenience sake). On merits, it is contended that land comprising Khata No. 26 min, Khatauni No. 53 min Khasra No. 267 and 308 measuring 14 Kanal 17 Marla was Abadi Tika where houses of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were existing. Family partition took place between the father of the plaintiff and proforma defendant and defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 was given the old house, which fell in Khasra No. 267 and the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were allotted house which fell in Khasra No. 308. On Khasra No. 308, there were two rooms alongwith one shed and also one dismantled cow shed which was presently owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Old house falling to the share of defendant No. 1 was demolished and defendant No. 1 constructed a new house on Khasra No. 267. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement. Issues were framed on 22.8.1994. Learned Senior Sub Judge vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.1999 passed a preliminary decree for partition of house and cow shed. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement. Issues were framed on 22.8.1994. Learned Senior Sub Judge vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.1999 passed a preliminary decree for partition of house and cow shed. Defendant No.1 feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Hamirpur, who dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 4.5.2005. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. The Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 22.3.2006 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court could have decreed the suit for partial partition?” 6. Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law framed, has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence on record. According to him, on the basis of evidence, preliminary decree could not be ordered to be drawn. 7. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 9. Roshan Lal has appeared as PW-1. He testified that on the suit land comprising of Kharsa No. 267 there existed a house 28 x 12 feet consisting of two rooms and a cow shed 19 x 11 feet. He admitted that when father of defendant died, their family was joint. He denied that there was any family partition in which Khasra No. 267 excessively fell to defendant and he got property in Khasra No. 308. He though admitted his possession on Khasra No. 308, claiming that he has purchased the same from his brother. 10. PW-2 Bihari Lal deposed that suit premises were situate over Khasra No. 267, which was in possession of Dada Chaudhary, grandfather of the parties. Parties started living separately in 1958. However, no partition in his presence has taken place. After residing separately, defendant and his mother started living separately in the house. He denied that the defendant in 1987 dismantled old house. 11. PW-3 Sali Ram deposed that the suit premises were never partitioned. Lashkari Ram, father of the plaintiff after constructing his separate house started living there. He denied categorically that the house on Khasra No. 267 fell to Ram Chand, defendant. 12. DW-1 Ram Chand deposed that a private partition had taken place in 1957-58. 11. PW-3 Sali Ram deposed that the suit premises were never partitioned. Lashkari Ram, father of the plaintiff after constructing his separate house started living there. He denied categorically that the house on Khasra No. 267 fell to Ram Chand, defendant. 12. DW-1 Ram Chand deposed that a private partition had taken place in 1957-58. Ancestral house on Khasra No. 308 came in the share of plaintiff Roshan Lal. Suit premises in Khasra No. 267 came in his share. He dismantled and reconstructed the house in 1986-88. Suit land was not joint with the plaintiff. He deposed that a settlement qua partition took place between the parents of the plaintiff. However, it was not reduced into writing. 13. DW-2 Rikhi Ram deposed that private partition took place in 1957-58 between the parents and mother of the defendant. House situate on Khasra No. 267 went to the share of Ram Chand. Plaintiff was allotted house on Khasra No. 308. Defendant dismantled the house and built a new house. 14. Plaintiff has proved Aks Shajra Kishtwar Ext. P1 and copy of Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 Ext. P2 in order to show that house and cattle shed co-owned by the parties situated in Abadi Tika have not been partitioned. Defendant has placed on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 to prove that suit premises were not joint between the parties and he has constructed his own house over Khasra No. 267. 15. Case of the defendant was that Rikhi Ram (DW-2) and plaintiff, in a private partition, were given house situate on Khasra No. 308 and Khasra No. 267 fell exclusively to his share. However, DW-2 Rikhi Ram has not testified that house situate on Khasra No. 308 was also given to him alongwith the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has not placed on record any deed of partition. He has not produced any witness to prove that a private partition has taken place in 1957-58. In case any partition had taken place, there would have been a deed of partition. Defendant No.1 has failed to prove that private family partition has taken place. Moreover, in the eventuality of a family partition, same ought to have been shown in the revenue record. 16. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. Defendant No.1 has failed to prove that private family partition has taken place. Moreover, in the eventuality of a family partition, same ought to have been shown in the revenue record. 16. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, the present appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed. 18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.