JUDGMENT 1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the petitioners' writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been dismissed. 2. The facts in nutshell are that Kajodi Mal (appellants' grandfather) filed a suit for partition in relation to agriculture land, which was lying in joint names of Kajodi Mal; Munni Lal; Pushkar Lal and Tejpal. It was alleged that Pushkar Lal and Tejpal had sold their 1/3rd share to the defendant No.2 Shankar Lal. 3. The defendants filed a written statement and indicated that pursuant to a family settlement between the parties, the disputed land had been given to defendant No.1. It was asserted that since then the land in question has been in continuous possession of defendant No.1. The defendant further pointed out that Mohan Lal - brother of plaintiff and defendant No.1 had filed a suit against the plaintiff and defendant No.1, in which the factum of partition had been accepted by the plaintiff not only in the written statement, but also by way of filing a specific affidavit. 4. Learned trial Court rejected the plaintiff's suit after appreciating the material available on record, vide its order dated 05.09.1997. 5. An appeal there-against came to be filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which too visited the same fate on 30.04.2001. The Revenue Appellate Authority while affirming the findings of the learned trial Court in relation to issue No.3 held that the factum of family settlement has been duly proved and that the defendant's possession is hostile in view of the affidavit and as such no decree partition can be granted. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the orders passed by the trial Court and the Revenue Appellate Authority, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer rejected the said appeal while observing that on the basis of the oral evidence, it is clear that the disputed land has been handed over to the defendant in furtherance of a family settlement. Learned Members of the Board of Revenue have also affirmed the finding qua issue No.4 and held that the plaintiff had unequivocally admitted the factum of handing over possession and consequent ownership of defendant No.1. It was also held that the plaintiff is estopped and hence cannot seek partition. Learned Members of the Board of Revenue have also affirmed the finding qua issue No.4 and held that the plaintiff had unequivocally admitted the factum of handing over possession and consequent ownership of defendant No.1. It was also held that the plaintiff is estopped and hence cannot seek partition. It will not be out of place to reproduce issue No.4, framed by the trial Court, which reads thus : image 1 7. Learned Members of the Board of Revenue have found that in document Ex.A/1, Kajod Mal, the appellant's predecessor had in unequivocal terms admitted that the defendant Munni Lal has been enjoying the possession of the contentious parcel of land, which has come to his possession pursuant to family settlement. 8. Against the judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners approached this Court by way of preferring a writ petition, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide its order dated 30.01.2018. 9. While dismissing the petitioners' writ petition learned Single Judge observed that Ranjeet Lal had admitted the rights of other two brothers, while also admitting the factum of family settlement arrived at between them. Learned Single Judge concluded that though such admission was made in an earlier civil suit, which had been dismissed as withdrawn, but nevertheless admission once made operates as estoppel. 10. Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the affidavit dated 19.07.1975 had been filed in an earlier civil suit No.37/75 filed by Mohan Lal brother of the appellants' predecessor Kajodi Mal, and the said suit had been dismissed as withdrawn. His argument has been that the admission made in the written statement or in the affidavit in a suit which had been dismissed as withdrawn cannot be used against the appellants to deprive them of their legitimate rights. 11. Learned counsel also invited attention of the Court towards the written statement said to have been filed by the defendant Munni Lal in Civil Suit No.37/97 and contended that name of Kajodi Mal has been inserted subsequently as it is hand written whereas the written statement is a typed document. 11. Learned counsel also invited attention of the Court towards the written statement said to have been filed by the defendant Munni Lal in Civil Suit No.37/97 and contended that name of Kajodi Mal has been inserted subsequently as it is hand written whereas the written statement is a typed document. At last he submitted that notwithstanding the fact that issues No.1 and 2 have been decided in appellants' favour and they have been held to be the owners of the subject land, but they have been denied the desired relief only on technical grounds. 12. Mr. Dilip Kawadia, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact against the appellants not only by three courts below, but also by learned Single Judge of this Court. He further submitted that the orders passed by the Courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and there is no perversity warranting interference by the Division Bench. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. It is not in dispute that Kajodi Mal appellants' predecessor plaintiff in unambiguous terms had accepted the ownership and possession of Munni Lal as a consequence of family settlement in the following manner :- image 2 15. It is true that the aforesaid suit being Civil Suit No.37/97 ultimately came to be dismissed as withdrawn; but merely because the suit had been dismissed, the admission made therein or the affidavit filed by the plaintiff does not get obliterated. Plaintiff Kajodi Mal appellants' predecessor and so also the appellants are bound by such admission and assertion made. The principle of estoppel does not permit the plaintiff to take u-turn and maintain the suit in question in the manner attempted to. That apart after the admission of ownership/possession made in the written statement filed in the year 1980, more than 12 years have passed, hence the suit was clearly barred by limitation, as held by the Courts below while deciding issue No.4. 16. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not made even a whisper about the family settlement or the defendants' ownership/possession pursuant to the family settlement, which they had made in the earlier suit. The plaintiff has not retracted or explained the admission made by him in the present suit. 17. 16. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not made even a whisper about the family settlement or the defendants' ownership/possession pursuant to the family settlement, which they had made in the earlier suit. The plaintiff has not retracted or explained the admission made by him in the present suit. 17. The admission made by the plaintiff in the earlier suit operates as an impediment in plaintiff's way of seeking partition of the contentious land, the ownership whereof had vested and possession handed over to the defendant, according to the plaintiffs' own admission in the earlier suit. 18. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 19. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.