JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No.4937 of 2017 Application is allowed. Annexure P-10 is taken on record. CWP No.1103 of 2017 The petitioners are aggrieved of the mode of partition and sanad takseem undated filed along with misc. application as Annexure P-10. There is an averment made in the writ petition that the sanad takseem had been passed on 03.01.2012. 2. The contention of Mr. Yadav is that at the time of initiation of the partition proceedings, the petitioners was minor. His interest has not been taken care of. In fact, he is in exclusive possession of area shown in blue colour in naksha bey (Annexure P-3 colly) whereas in pursuance of the mode of partition, respondent had been given one chunk whereas the petitioner had been given two chunks, therefore, the mode of partition is not in consonance with law, much less, is against the interest of the petitioner, who was minor at the relevant point of time. 3. This Court called upon Mr. Yadav regarding mode of partition and as well as exclusive possession of killa No.23 which has fallen to the share of the respondent, the answer was that the revenue record shows joint khata. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. On going through the naksha bey, no doubt three chunks have been given to all the owners but two chucks which came to the share of petitioner are facing the main road whereas a very fraction of piece of land in the share of the respondent has fallen on the main road. It is settled law that every co-owner, who is reported as joint co-owner in joint khata, cannot claim possession of particular land on the premise that it is in exclusive possession, particularly in the absence of revenue record. Every inch of land owned between co-owners is husband-wife like relation. Possession in such circumstances has to be disturbed. In this circumstances, the naksha bey has been prepared by giving two chunks and entire version of the petitioner is bereft of merit as the land given to the petitioner is road facing, in essence, the petitioner has been given a more superior quality of land. 5. In my view, the interest of the petitioner being minor had been kept in tact and no prejudice has been caused. 5. In my view, the interest of the petitioner being minor had been kept in tact and no prejudice has been caused. Resultantly, the order under challenge cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The sanad taksim is of the year 2012 and the writ petition is bereft of the pleading whether the same has been implemented or not. No ground for interference is made out. The writ petition stand dismissed.