JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed by the aggrieved defendants, against, concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, where through, the plaintiffs suit for possession, through, partition of the suit land, comprised in khevat No. 31/1 khatauni No. 34/1, Khasra No. 81, measuring 52 sq yards 4 sq feet, and, also for hence rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, qua therewith, hence stood decreed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to be the plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession by way of partition and for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming themselves to be owners in possession of 60 shares in the property consisting of two storeyed pucca shops over land comprising khevat No. 31/1, Khatauni No. 34/1, Khasra No. 81, measuring 52 Sq. yards 4 Sq. feet, situated at Mauza Banikhet, Tehsil Dalhousie District Chamba (hereinafter referred to be as the suit property), against appellants and respondents No. 3 to 11 (hereinafter referred to be as the defendants) on the grounds that the suit property is joint between the parties and has not been partitioned. Defendants are in possession of more share and plaintiffs requested them time and again to get the suit property partitioned, but they did not do so. The plaintiffs requested defendants not to demolish the suit property till, partition, but they are adamant and have started demolishing it with a view to raise new construction. 3. The suit has been contested only by defendants No. 1 to 6 by filing written statement to the plaint. They have raised preliminary objections of maintainability and estoppels. On merits, the defendants have admitted that the plaintiffs are owners of 30 shares, but the defendants are in possession of whole premises, for the last so many years and question of demolishing it does not arise. The premises in dispute has been constructed exclusively by Shri Ashwani Kumar, son of defendant No. 1 and husband of defendant No. 2, by spending huge amount about 23 years back in the presence of plaintiffs and at that time, plaintiffs never objected. The shop is in the ground floor and the first floor is being used by defendants as their residence. 4. Replication has been filed, wherein contentions made in the written statement are denied and those made in the plaint are re-asserted. The shop is in the ground floor and the first floor is being used by defendants as their residence. 4. Replication has been filed, wherein contentions made in the written statement are denied and those made in the plaint are re-asserted. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 21.4.2008: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the partition as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD (5) Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit. In an appeal, preferred there from by the defendants/respondents, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the defendants/respondents herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail, the, findings respectively, recorded in the impugned judgments and decrees, as, rendered by both the Courts below. 7. In the operative part of the concurrently recorded verdicts, the, shares of the contesting litigants, in the suit Khasra Nos., are, enumerated as under: Plaintiffs: 60 shares Defendant No. 1 13 shares Defendants No. 2 to 6 5 shares Defendants No. 7 and 8 12 shares Defendants Nos 9 to 11 and 12 120 shares 8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law, rather arises for determination, interse the contesting litigants, in, the disputed suit property, as disclosed in the Jamabandi, appertaining therewith, to be rather, hence, undivided interse the contesting litigants. The drawings of the shares of the contesting litigants, in, the operative part, of the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the learned Courts below, does un-contestedly, bear consonance, vis--vis, their shares, as reflected in the Jamabandis, as appertaining to the suit property. The drawings of the shares of the contesting litigants, in, the operative part, of the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the learned Courts below, does un-contestedly, bear consonance, vis--vis, their shares, as reflected in the Jamabandis, as appertaining to the suit property. However, the learned counsel for the aggrieved defendants, has contended with much vigor, before this Court, that all the reflections borne in the Jamabandis, appertaining to the disputed suit property, rather suffering diminution, diminution whereof being sparked by (a) construction, over, the suit land, being exclusively raised, by the son of one Pushpa Devi, and, from his funds, and, when hence thereat the plaintiffs, rather omitted, to make any apt remonstrance, (b) thereupon, the plaintiffs being, estopped to claim, any share in the disputed suit property. (c) However, DW-1 and DW-2, in their respectively recorded depositions, borne in their respective cross-examinations, acquiesce qua the disputed suit property, being undivided, and the plaintiffs, along with other defendants rather holding co-ownerships thereon. The effect of the afore admission, is, qua the afore reared contention, by the learned counsel, for the aggrieved defendants, that hence the revenue entries, carried in the Jamabandi, appertaining to the suit property, suffering rebuttal (d) despite, theirs hence making candid articulations, qua the disputed suit property, being jointly owned by the parties at contest, rather coming, to, there from hence suffer apt, dilutions, (e) contrarily rather on anvil, of, the afore admission, the afore referred reflections, as carried in the revenue records, hence acquire apt conclusivity. The effect thereof, is qua hence, the possession, if any, or construction, if any, (f) if assumingly stands raised, upon, the suit property, exclusively by the son of one Pushpa Devi, would not yet erode, the trite canon, embedded in the jurisprudential concept, of, joint tenancy, tenet whereof, is, comprised in each of the recorded co-owners, in the undivided property, holding unity of title and community of possession, vis--vis, every inch, of the, undivided suit property, (g) and thereupon exclusive possession, if any, by any co-owners, vis--vis, any portion of the undivided suit property, being construable, to be his holding constructive possession thereof, even for other co-owners, who do not hold any physical possession thereof, nor any physical possession, of, the undivided suit property, by any co-owner, hence being not construable, to hence oust the co-owners, not, in exclusive possession thereof, to, claim dis-memberment of the undivided suit property, by metes and bounds, (f) and also, theirs not being debarred, to, on culmination of partition proceedings, receive apt exclusive physical possessions , of, tracts of the dismembered property, in, consonance with their shares, as reflected in the revenue records. 9. Further more, no estoppel is generated, by any lack of remonstrance, by the plaintiffs, vis--vis, construction, if any, and, assumingly raised exclusively, by the son of one Pushpa Devi, and, from his own funds, upon the suit property, (a) and, nor any purported afore estoppel hence holding any baulking effects, vis--vis, any indefeasible right, of, any co-owner, to rather seek partition, of, evidently undivided suit property. 10. Be that as it may, the defendants by raising the afore plea, strived to erect obviously, a plea of estoppel, with tacit underlinings, of, their completely rather ousting the plaintiffs, from theirs enjoying the, undivided suit property. However, the afore estoppel, is not well-entrenched, as no firm pleadings, in consonance therewith, hence exist in the apt written statement, as instituted to the plaint. However, the afore estoppel, is not well-entrenched, as no firm pleadings, in consonance therewith, hence exist in the apt written statement, as instituted to the plaint. (a) since importantly, subsequent to the accrual, of the apt causes of action, comprised in the defendants concerned, in excess of their shares, in the undivided suit property, hence raising construction thereon, rather the instant suit being instituted, (b) and, the defendants, though controverted the factum, of, accrual of cause of action, hence commencing in, the first week of March, by rendering depositions, qua earlier thereto, the suit property, upon it, being set ablaze, hence it being re-constructed, from, the exclusive funds, of, son of DW-1, ( c) yet the afore deposition, is discardable, given it being beyond the pleadings, existing in the written statement, instituted to the plaint, by defendants No. 1 to 6, besides when the afore defendants also omitted to specify, upon, theirs purportedly striving to rather bely the afore factum, of, accrual of cause of action, as reared in the plaint, hence the exact date whereat rather, and, in the afore manner, the, son of DW-1, proceeded to raise construction, upon the suit property, (d) thereupon, too, the afore espousal rather remains unrested, upon, any consonance therewith apt pleadings. 11. In aftermath, the effects of the afore nondisclosures, in the written statement, instituted by defendants No. 1 to 6, to the plaint, also engenders an inference, qua no estoppel, purportedly, arising from, no, remonstrance being, at the earliest stage, vis--vis, construction, raised exclusively by them, hence getting sparked, vis--vis, the plaintiff, and nor hence, the defendants claim, vis--vis, any purported ouster of the plaintiffs, from the suit property, is, workable, vis--vis, the defendants. 12. 12. The upshot of the afore discussion, is that the drawing of, a preliminary decree, by both the learned Courts below, rather in the operative part, of the verdict, pronounced by the learned trial Judge, not, hence bearing any dis-concurrence, vis--vis, all the reflections, in consonance therewith, as existing in the revenue records, and, when the afore drawing, of shares, is not, the acerbic contest interse the litigating parties, (a) thereupon when the aggrieved defendants, can validly anvil, their claim for setting aside the rendition, of, a preliminary decree, of, partition, upon it bearing dis-concurrence, vis--vis, the reflections appertaining therewith, as, carried in the revenue record, whereas, with the afore purported dis- concurrences rather remaining, un-canvassed, besides un-established, thereupon, the concurrently recorded verdicts, are not, amenable for interference. 13. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusion as arrived by the learned Courts below, is based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned Courts below, have not excluded germane, and, apposite material from consideration. 14. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the Courts below are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.