JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):- The present regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs for partition of 7/10 share out of plot measuring 10 marlas comprised of Killa No.36//24/3 (0-10), Khewat No.606/514 of village Bari, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat by relying upon documents i.e. jamabandi for the year 2007-08, Ex.P1 and aks sizra Ex.P2. It was alleged that the defendants had 3/10th share. Since the revenue record reflected the nature of the land as agricultural, in the absence of partition, they were required to be given separate possession by metes and bounds. 2. Defendants opposed the suit and alleged that father of the plaintiffs i.e. their predecessor Bejnath had already carved out residential colony and without obtaining permission of change of land use sold the land in the form of small plots, which cannot be partitioned, though the revenue record reflected the nature of the property to be ancestral. 3. Plaintiffs only examined two witnesses and brought on record Ex.P1 to P3 whereas defendants examined four witnesses and brought on record various sale deeds Ex.D2 dated 11.04.1990, Ex.D3 dated 02.05.1990, Ex.D4 dated 31.12.2001, Ex.D5 dated 31.12.2001, exchange deed Ex.D6 dated 25.06.2012, Ex.D14 mutation, judgment and decree of the injunction suit Ex.D9 and D10, jamabandi for the year 2012-13 Ex.D13, which reflected that the land had not only been sold but exchanged also by their predecessor. The plaintiffs did not come with clean hands. 4. Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there was no concealment of fact that the land was agricultural whereas it was residential property, since there was no land use, thus, nature of the property remained same. The local commissioner’s report was not in accordance with law. Non filing of the site plan cannot be a ground to deny partition as jamabandi Ex.P2 was not denied, which carries presumption of truth under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 5. I have learned counsel for the appellants, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit, for, the sale deeds referred to above were withheld by the plaintiffs, much less, the site plan. An attempt was made to seek partition by relying upon the jamabandi by concealing the aforementioned sale deeds. 5. I have learned counsel for the appellants, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit, for, the sale deeds referred to above were withheld by the plaintiffs, much less, the site plan. An attempt was made to seek partition by relying upon the jamabandi by concealing the aforementioned sale deeds. As per the local commissioner, there was a residential colony and certain roads were carved out, thus, had become unpartitioned. Already major portion of the land out of 3 acres of agricultural land has been sold. Taking the advantage of entry in the jamabandi, the plaintiff cannot seek partition by way of separate possession and rightly has been ousted. 6. In view of such circumstances, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact and law rendered 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.