JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed against the verdict, rendered on 2nd November, 2015, by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Suit No. 41 of 2003. 2. The learned Single Judge, accepted the report of the Local Commissioner concerned, where after, it in consonance therewith, rendered a final decree of partition by metes and bound, of, the hitherto undivided suit property. The defendant/appellant herein had relied upon Ex.DW1/A, exhibit whereof is a rent deed executed with respect to a commercial establishment, occurring, in a part of the hitherto undivided suit property, commercial establishment whereof, is, designated as shop No. 135 and is situated in Lower Bazar, Shimla, besides reliance is also placed, upon, certain rent receipts borne in Ext. DW1/B to Ex.DW1/G. The imminent purpose behind reliance being placed thereon, was to derive, legal capitalization, from, verdicts rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court as also by the various High Courts in cases tiled Puran Chand(deceased) through LRs and others vs. Kirpal Singh (deceased) and others, (2001)2 SCC 433 , Nalakath Sainuddin vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman, AIR 2002, SC 2562, T. Lakshmipathi and others vs. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others, (2003) 5 SCC 150 , India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and others vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (deceased) by LRs Savitri Agarwalla (Smt) and others, (2004) 3 SCC 178 , Pramod Kumar Jaiswaland others vs. Bibi Husn Bano and others, (2005) 5 SCC 492 , Savitri Devi vs. Santa and others, 1982 Sim.L.C. 135, Shafiq Ahmad vs. Smt. Sayeedan, AIR 1984 Allahabad 140, Ishwar Dayal and others vs. Ram Deo, 1985 (1) R.C.J. 619, Balak Ram vs. Kedar Nath (deceased) through his L.Rs. Joginder Paul and others, 1995 (1) Sim.L.C. 191 and Hameeda Begum and another vs. Champa Bai Jain and others, 2009 (2) RLR 518, (i) where-within, a trite legal expostulation, exists, of acquisition of partial proprietary rights, by the co-owner concerned, in the undivided suit property, not carrying, the force of hence termination(s) of hitherto tenancy(s) therein, also making its ensuals. The reliance by the appellant, upon, the afore referred verdicts, appears to be generated, for, frustrating the respondents/plaintiffs, to, seek dismemberment(s) by metes and bounds, of the commercial establishment concerned. The reliance by the appellant, upon, the afore referred verdicts, appears to be generated, for, frustrating the respondents/plaintiffs, to, seek dismemberment(s) by metes and bounds, of the commercial establishment concerned. However, the afore-stated endeavour, of, the defendant/appellant herein is in its entirety, misplaced, as a reading of the judgments, relied upon by him, for, making the aforesaid espousal, of, especially thereupon the establishment concerned, being unamenable vis-a-vis its dismemberment by metes and bounds, rather not, settling the aforesaid espousals therein. 3. Be that as it may, since reliance, upon, Ex.DW1/A by the appellant/defendant besides reliance placed by him, upon, certain rent receipts, appertaining to the commercial establishment concerned, hence was concluded by the learned Single Judge, to be carrying no evidentiary worth. Consequently, the defendant/appellant being aggrieved therefrom, hence, it becomes the bounden obligation, of this Court, to assess the merits, of his contention, whereby, he assails the findings recorded, by the learned Single Judge, of this Court qua sanctity being dis-imputable vis-a-vis all exhibits aforesaid. 4. Ex. DW1/A was scribed on 19.05.1986. It carries the signatures, of defendant/appellant Roshan Lal and of Mohinder Pal, for himself and for other co-owner with him, namely, one Sarswati Devi. Witnesses thereto have also appended their signatures thereon. Defendant Roshan Lal, who tendered Ex.DW1/A, has stepped into the witness box, to render his testification, in consonance therewith. Moreover, the witnesses thereto, one Om Prakash Sod and one Yoginder Pal, respectively stepped into the witness box, as DW-3 and DW-4, for rendering testifications, in proof of valid execution, of Ex.DW1/A. However, the testifications rendered by all the aforesaid witnesses, would not constrain any inference from this Court, that Ex.DW1/A is free from any taints of suspicion, dehors its valid execution, besides dehors its evidently and provenly bearing the signatures of all executants thereof, unless, their testifications are subjected to an incisive scrutiny. The necessity of making an incisive circumspect evaluation, of, the testifications rendered by, aforesaid Dws, (i) is sparked by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, making strenuous effort, to, bely the recitals borne therein, (ii) also theirs making a fervent effort, for earmarking the factum, of it, being merely a devise or a contrivance deployed by the defendant, to, in collusion with one Mohinder Pal, invent tenancy with respect to the commercial establishment concerned, (iii) singularly for defeating the indefeasible interests, of, the plaintiffs/respondents herein, who admittedly are also recorded as co-owners thereof, (iv) whereupon they are entitled to seek dismemberment, of, the shop concerned, by this Court, accepting the proposals vis-a-vis its partition, by metes and bounds, as, purveyed by the Local Commissioner concerned. This Court on making an in-depth, study, of the testifications, of, the aforesaid witnesses is constrained, to draw a conclusion, (v) of Ex.DW1/A being merely a camouflage, deployed by the defendant, for, subverting the interests, of, the plaintiffs/respondents, of theirs seeking its dismemberment, by metes and bounds. The reason for making the aforesaid conclusion ensues from (a) one Mohinder Pal, signaturing it for himself besides for and on behalf of a co-owner along with him, namely, one Sarswati, whereas, with DW-1 in his cross-examination, making an echoing, (b) of, at the time contemporaneous to execution of Ex.DW1/A, hers being not alive, hence, renders the occurrence of her name therein, to be vulnerable to the gravest skepticism, (c) especially when her interest in the joint suit property devolved upon her legal heirs, who rather were enjoined to purvey the apposite authorization, to Mohinder Pal, for, his on their behalf, executing Ex.DW1/A vis-a-vis the defendant. (d) Ex. DW1/A being scribed by defendant Roshan Lal Sood, the reason whereof, for Mohinder Pal Sood, omitting to scribe it, is ascribed, in the crossexamination of DW-1, to ensue, from, the hands of Mohinder Pal Sood trembling, at the relevant time. (d) Ex. DW1/A being scribed by defendant Roshan Lal Sood, the reason whereof, for Mohinder Pal Sood, omitting to scribe it, is ascribed, in the crossexamination of DW-1, to ensue, from, the hands of Mohinder Pal Sood trembling, at the relevant time. However, the aforesaid reason, is ingrained with a deep falsity, arising, from the factum of a day prior thereto, the aforesaid Mohinder Pal Sood, scribing the recitals of Ex.DW1/B also his authoring the same, (e) wherefrom, it is inevitable to conclude, of the reason assigned by DW-1 in his cross-examination, of his proceeding, to scribe the recitals of Ex.DW1/A, given the hands of Mohinder Pal Sood trembling, being reiteratedly an invention, more so, when on each of the page(s) of Ex.DW1/A, the signatures of Mohinder Pal Sood are not carried, rather they are carried on the last page, of Ex.DW1/A, thereupon, render the latter exhibit to acquire an enhanced stain of concoction. 5. Furthermore, suspicion hence imbuing the validity, of execution of Ex. DW1/A by Mohinder Pal, is (i) strengthened by Ex.DW1/B to Ex.DW1/G, making revelations, of theirs being issued by author thereof, for, one Sarswati Sood, the co-owner along with Mohinder Pal Sood, who however, as disclosed in the cross-examination, of, DW-1 was not alive, at the time contemporaneous, to the execution of Ex.DW1/A, (ii) wherefrom, this Court has drawn a conclusion, of occurrence of her name therein, hence, inviting suspicion, (iii) especially when rather, upon, one Mohinder Pal Sood, hence, holding the apposite authorization, from, the legal heirs of the aforesaid Sarswati Sood, where-upon-whom, her interests in the commercial establishment concerned, hence, devolved along with Mohinder Pal Sood, would hence rather render it to hold sanctity, (iv) besides when all the receipts are issued visibly by its author, in contemporaneity with besides subsequent to the execution of Ex.DW1/A, who appears to be one Mohinder Pal Sood, not for himself rather for Sarswati Sood, (v) thereupon, a inference which is garnerable therefrom, is of Mohinder Pal Sood, issuing receipts vis-a-vis the commercial establishment concerned, not in consonance with EX.DW1/A, rather his issuing receipts in dis-concurrence therefrom. Also his belying the factum of his accepting rent, even if in purported consonance vis-a-vis Ex.DW1/A, not for himself, rather for and on behalf of one Sarswati Sood, the latter whereof had evidently died in the year 1974 and was hence not alive, in contemporaneity vis-a-vis the execution of Ex.DW1/A. The effect of the aforesaid discussion, is, of the testifications of the apposite witnesses, in corroboration of the testification of EX.DW1/A, likewise losing their probative worth, rendering them, not fit, for reliance being placed, for hence, imputing sanctity vis-a-vis Ex.DW1/A. 6. Importantly, also it is revealed by a verdict borne in Ex.PA, rendered in a lis inter se one Jatinder Lal Mohinder Pal vis-a-vis defendant Roshan Lal Sood and one Joginder Pal, of, defendant Roshan Lal, being judicially declared along with Joginder Pal, to run, a joint partnership mercantile activity, in the commercial establishment concerned also a disclosure exists therein, of, Roshan Lal being never inducted as a tenant, in the premises. The aforesaid verdict acquires conclusivity, in respect of the aforesaid facts, given its being also in consonance with the testification rendered by DW-4, of, defendant Roshan Lal and DW-4, running from 1952 upto 1986, a partnership commercial concern, in the shop concerned. The testification of DW-4, of, Joginder Pal carrying partnership business alongwith defendant Roshan Lal Sood, in the commercial establishment concerned, commencement of partnership business whereof, occurred in 1952 and lasted upto 1986 AND, of, a deed dissolving the partnership firm, being executed in May, 1986, carries a further effect, of, (a) absence of tendering into evidence by DW-4 and by defendant Roshan Lal Sood, of, the deed dissolving the partnership business, they carried, in the commercial establishment concerned, begetting an inference of the partnership business carried in the commercial establishment concerned by DW-4 and by Roshan Lal Sood, (b) being not dissolved in May, 1986, (c) dehors DW-4 running the business enterprises, in a commercial premises, opposite, the commercial premises concerned, (d) wherefrom, it is also apt to conclude of the preparation, of, Ex.DW1/A being merely a sharp stratagem deployed by all its executants only for defeating the interest(s) of the plaintiffs to, seek its dismemberment, by metes and bounds. In aftermath, all the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge of this Court, qua the untenability, of, authenticity of Ex.DW1/A, do not suffer from any infirmity. In aftermath, all the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge of this Court, qua the untenability, of, authenticity of Ex.DW1/A, do not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, the findings rendered, on apposite issue No. 1, by the learned Single Judge, warrant affirmation. 7. The pivotal besides fulcrum of the entire lis engaging the parties at contest, (a) is hinged upon the merits of the proposals, made, by the Local Commissioner concerned vis-a-vis the dismemberment by metes and bounds, of, the commercial establishment, nomenclatured as Akash Boot House, wherefrom, the defendant/appellant herein, is, running mercantile activities, (b) besides the validity of acceptance by the learned Single Bench, of this Court, of the report, of the Local Commissioner, is also to be dwelt upon. Uncontrovertedly, the defendant/appellant herein, is in possession, of a commercial establishment bearing shop No. 135, located at lower bazar, Shimla. The Local Commissioner was enjoined to mete deference, to, the settled principle of law, governing, the meeting of proposals by him, for, an equitable dismemberment, by metes and bounds, of the joint property concerned, (c) settled principle whereof are carried, in reverence being meted by him vis-a-vis the settled possession, of, the litigant concerned, upon, portion(s) of the hitherto undivided suit property, besides commercial premises also warranting their equitable distribution, amongst, all co-owners, especially when some of the co-owners, are not, holding possession of any part thereof. The learned Single Judge of this Court, had, on ground of inability, of the defendant, to not project objections, at the time of the Local Commissioner, carrying measurement(s) of the suit property concerned, besides his not projecting any objections, in the proceedings drawn by the Local Commissioner concerned, hence, irrevered, the objections purveyed by the defendant vis-a-vis the report of the Local Commissioner. Even though, the Local Commissioner, stepped into the witness box, for, proving, his report and the site plan prepared by him, AND though, he was also omitted to be cross-examined by the counsel, for the defendants, yet therefrom alone, it would not be befitting to conclude, of, the defendants acquiescing, to the report of the Local Commissioner, nor it would be appropriate, to conclude, of, the defendant hence waiving his right, to claim his being entitled to retain possession, in its entirety, of the commercial establishment concerned. The reason for making the aforesaid conclusion, emanates, (i) from the Local Commissioner, in his testification, borne in his examination-in-chief making articulations, of, their existing, two shops at the road level, one whereof being in possession of the plaintiff and the other, being in possession of the defendant and his son. However, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, are, apparently related to each other being son and father respectively. Likewise PW-1, who, is the son of co-plaintiff No. 2, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, tendered in evidence his affidavit, of, 9.3.2007 besides tendered certified copy of a verdict recorded by the Rent Controller(s) Shimla. In his testification borne in his cross-examination, he makes a disclosure therein, of, no commercial area in the hitherto undivided suit property being in his possession, rather his father co-plaintiff No. 2, holding possession thereof. Co-plaintiff No. 2, the father of coplaintiff No. 2, did not step into the witness box, to, make echoings therein, of, his not holding any cordial relations with his son, arrayed as co-plaintiff No. 1 or, of, his hence disinheriting him vis-avis the profits, of the commercial enterprises concerned. Co-plaintiff No. 2, the father of coplaintiff No. 2, did not step into the witness box, to, make echoings therein, of, his not holding any cordial relations with his son, arrayed as co-plaintiff No. 1 or, of, his hence disinheriting him vis-avis the profits, of the commercial enterprises concerned. Hence for want co-plaintiff No. 2, the father of co-plaintiff No. 1, not, stepping into the witness box, for making any testification, of, his not sharing, with co-plaintiff No. 1, all the profits of the mercantile activities, carried, in the commercial establishment, possessed by him, establishment whereof exists in the undivided suit property, (ii) hence, it can be concluded that both co-plaintiffs are jointly driving the benefits of the mercantile activity, carried therein AND no loss would befall upon them, in case, the defendant is permitted to retain possession, of, the commercial establishment, premises whereof is in his extant possession, (iii) therefrom, the espousal of co-plaintiff No. 1 to seek dismemberment of shop No. 135, possessed, extantly, by the defendant, may not be amenable, to acceptance as it may, (iv) disturb the equities besides may beget disruption of the settled principle of law, governing, the dismemberment of hitherto undivided joint estates, by metes and bounds, principle whereof is rooted, in the factum of settled possession, warranting, its remaining undisturbed, (v) also may not disrupt the further principle, governing, settlement of equities, amongst, all the co-owners vis-avis the apposite commercial enterprise, carried in the hitherto undivided estate(s), enjoining equitable distribution amongst all the co-owners, given (vi) as stated above there being no evidence, on record, of, the co-plaintiff No. 2, excluding his son, arrayed as co-plaintiff No. 1, from profits thereof and, (vii) of, no evidence existing on record, of, bitterness existing inter se the relations of co-plaintiff No. 1 and co-plaintiff No. 2, and (vi) no evidence existing on record, of, co-plaintiff No. 2, not sharing with co-plaintiff No. 1, the profits, of, the mercantile activity carried in the commercial establishment concerned. Since, hence, obviously plaintiff No. 2, is, to be inferred, to share the profits of the mercantile activity, carried, in the extantly possessed premises by him, with, co-plaintiff No. 1, his son, (vii) thereupon, the proposals, made, by Local Commissioner concerned of the apt commercial establishment, nomencaltured as shop No. 135, evidently, extantly possessed by defendant No. 1, being, partitioned, is not acceptable, (viii) given in sequel thereto, there being the narrowest frontage vis-a-vis the pavement of the bazar concerned, (ix) whereat it is located, rendering it to be commercially unavailable vis-a-vis the co-sharer(s) where-to-whom, it, is apportioned, (x) hence the proposals made by the Local Commissioner vis-a-vis the apt commercial establishment, are not to be revered. (xi) Consequently, for, also ensuring commercial viability, of, the commercial establishment concerned, nomenclatured, as shop No. 135, extant possession whereof is held by the defendant, besides when it is, not, demonstrated by any cogent evidence, that in case extant possession thereof, would infract the inviolable principle(s) of homogeneity and integrity besides unity thereof, rather being preserved, so essential both for viability(ies) of business AND also for convenience of consumers. Consequently, for preserving the aforesaid principles, the proposals made by the Local Commissioner are rejected, only in respect of the apt commercial premises concerned, nomenclatured as Shop No. 135 AND the findings in respect thereof rendered by the learned Single Judge are also hence reversed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgement and decree is set aside to the above extent only, however, subject to the commercial premises aforesaid, not falling outside the share of the defendant in the undivided suit property. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.