JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal J. (Oral) - The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in seeking the partition by metes and bounds bearing old No.900 to 903/1 and new No.959/1-12 situated at Ram Bagh, near Goal Hatti Chowk, Hall Bazar Amritsar. It was alleged that Saudagar Mal son of Atma Ram was the owner of the aforementioned suit property. He died on 09.01.1965 and survived by three sons namely Munshi Ram, Chunni Lal and Lakhpat Rai. Saudagar Mall had executed a legal and valid Will dated 13.03.1962 and bequeathed entire property to the extent of 1/3rd share to Chunni Lal and 2/3rd share to Lakhpat Rai and his son Munshi Ram was disinherited. Chunni Lal, during his life time, executed a legal and valid Will dated 06.08.1993 bequeathing his share. On his demise on 01.09.1994, his wife had become the owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share. As per the record of the Improvement Trust, Lakhpat Rai and Chunni Lal purchased the strip of land adjoining the suit property to the extent of 50% each. 2. The defendants opposed the suit and denied the jointness of the property. It was stated that the property had already been partitioned. The factum of the Will executed by Saudagar Mall was admitted. 3. On preponderance of the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff was not successful before the lower Appellate Court. 4. Mr. Parveen K. Kataria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the memorandum of appeal submitted that once the record of the Improvement Trust reflected the ownership of the suit property to the extent of 50% each amongst two brothers namely Lakhpat Rai and Chunni Lal, the recital in the Will dated 06.08.1993, Ex.P5 of ownership would be insignificant. This fact has been endorsed by the defendant in the cross-examination. In fact, there was no partition by metes and bounds. Arrangement amongst the co-sharer would not tantamount that partition has already been effected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit. The contents of the Will of Chunni Lal dated 06.08.1993, Ex.P5 revealed that the suit property had already been partitioned. Arrangement amongst the co-sharer would not tantamount that partition has already been effected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit. The contents of the Will of Chunni Lal dated 06.08.1993, Ex.P5 revealed that the suit property had already been partitioned. The appellant plaintiff, son of Raj Rani in cross-examination admitted that he had been in possession of the shop as tenant, thus, the plea raised in the appeal is falsified and stand of the defendant had been upheld. There are many cases where families have partitioned the property but the records reflected joint ownership. Oral partition without causing entry in the revenue record or the records of the revenue authority would not confer joint ownership. This is what is the import of the judgment and decree of the Courts below. 6. I do not intend to subscribe to the argument of counsel for the appellant to form a different opinion than the one already arrived at by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.