JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 21.5.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 23/05/04, titled as Mohinder Singh Vs. Uttam Singh and others, whereby affirming judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dalhousie, District Chamba in Civil Suit No. 60 of 2002, titled as Mohinder Singh Vs. Uttam Singh and others and suit of the plaintiff filed for partition of Abadi Deh, mandatory and prohibitory injunctions, has been dismissed. 2. Present appeal was admitted on 7.8.2006 on following substantial question of law:- "Whether the two Courts below have failed to construe and interpret the gift deed Ex. PA correctly and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice?" 3. At the time of admission of appeal in the year 2006, parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of the suit property during pendency of appeal. In the year 2010, an application bearing CMP No. 641 of 2020 was preferred on behalf of defendant/respondent No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC against the appellant/plaintiff. In response thereto, along with reply to it, appellant/plaintiff had placed on record photocopy of compromise dated 7.11.2008 arrived at between the parties. However, on subsequent dates, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff had expressed his inability to produce the original compromise for want of supply thereof by the appellant/plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant/respondent No. 1 had also expressed his inability to verify the facts stated in the photocopy of compromise, for want of instructions and ultimately on 5.12.2016, counsel for both sides had sought time for arguing the case on merits. 4. In November, 2017 an application bearing CMP No. 10020 of 2017, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was also filed for placing on record copy of Misal Hakiyat Bandobast for the year 1951-52 as an additional evidence, to substantiate the plea of the plaintiff/appellant with respect to property owned by Phulan Devi from whom father of plaintiff/appellant and performa defendants/respondents No. 4 to 8 and husband of performa defendant/respondent No. 9 had inherited the property, including share in suit land. 5. Perusal of documents sought to be produced in additional evidence along with application, indicates that it does not reflect ownership or possession of any party upon Khasra No. 1066, which is subject matter of present lis. 5. Perusal of documents sought to be produced in additional evidence along with application, indicates that it does not reflect ownership or possession of any party upon Khasra No. 1066, which is subject matter of present lis. So far as ownership and possession of Phulan Devi upon the property/land is concerned, as reflected in this proposed evidence, the same has already been proved on record and fact regarding common title and possession of Phulan Devi upon this Khasra No. 1066 has not been disputed by defendants at any point of time. Therefore, document sought to be led as an additional evidence with this application is not necessary for adjudication of present appeal. Hence CMP No. 10020 of 2017 is liable to be rejected. 6. Case of plaintiff/appellant is that he and performa defendants/respondents No. 4 to 8 are sons and daughters of one Chand/Chando and performa defendant/respondent No. 9 is his wife and they have common right, title and interest in the suit property and this property in their family settlement, has been allotted to plaintiff and performa respondent No. 5 Joginder Singh. The said property, comprised in Khasra No. 1066, is Abadi Deh, as also evident from Nakal Jasmabandi Ex. PG, placed on record. Plaintiff/appellant along with performa defendants is claiming right on half share of Khasra No. 1066 along with two houses and one cowshed existing thereon in the year 1958 on the basis of Gift Deed Ex. PA, executed in the year 1958 by one Phulan Devi wife of Kodu in favour of Chand, father of plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff/Appellant has placed on record Nakal Shajra (pedigree table) Ex. PE, which indicates that Kaudu, Jhaulu, Kirloo, Parma and Gurditta were sons of Pyara Singh and in it Kaudu, Jhaulu and Kirloo have been shown to have expired prior to Parma and Gurditta and record further indicates that suit property was owned and possessed by Parma and Gurditta in equal shares, and after death of Parma in the year 1955 share of Parma vide mutation No. 26 had devolved upon Phulan widow of Kodu on 30.9.1955. Remaining half share of property in dispute was with Gurditta. 8. From Ex. Remaining half share of property in dispute was with Gurditta. 8. From Ex. PD, it is evident that Gurditta had gifted his share in property orally in favour of his daughter Brahmi and mutation No. 55 to this effect was attested on 13.6.1957 and thereafter property owned and possessed by Brahmi, was inherited by defendants being her sons and daughters and mutation No. 181 to that effect was attested on 29.11.1968. 9. Property owned and possessed by Phulan, by way of gift, was transferred in favour of Chand S/o Hira Singh, who was father of plaintiff and performa defendants No. 4 to 9 and mutation No. 6 to this effect was attested on 11.12.1958. 10. Copy of jamabandi Ex. PC for the year 2000-01 proves that plaintiff and performa respondents No. 4 to 9 had become owner of the property of Phulan Devi, whereas copy of jamabandi Ex. PB for the year 2000-2001 proves that Khasra No. 1066 is Abadi Deh. Nakal jamabandi Ex. PF and PG also prove the same fact. 11. Except Gift Deed Ex. PA, there is no other document having any reference with respect to ownership, possession and share in Khasra No. 1066, for partition whereof suit has been preferred by plaintiff. 12. Plaintiff has examined two witnesses including himself and defendant No. 1 also, including himself, has examined two witnesses. PW-1 is plaintiff himself and PW-2 is Udham Singh, resident of same village. DW-1 Uttam Singh is defendant No. 1, whereas DW-2 Raj Mal is resident of another district i.e. Village Shahpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh He has claimed that in the year 1954-55, he had stayed in Village Rasoli Hatli, i.e. village of parties and during those days he was earning his livelihood as meson. 13. In Ex. PA donor Phulan Devi has given details of her property comprised in Khewat No. 39/93, situated in Village Hatli and has gifted it to Chand S/o Hira Chand, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff and performa defendants. In second part of the gift deed, it is mentioned that besides the aforesaid property Phulan Devi was also owner in possession of half share of two houses and one cowshed, constructed upon Abadi Deh comprised in Khasra No. 1066 in Village Hatli. The wording is " VERNACULAR MATTER 14. From Ex. PD and Ex. In second part of the gift deed, it is mentioned that besides the aforesaid property Phulan Devi was also owner in possession of half share of two houses and one cowshed, constructed upon Abadi Deh comprised in Khasra No. 1066 in Village Hatli. The wording is " VERNACULAR MATTER 14. From Ex. PD and Ex. PE, it is evident that Phulan and Gurditta were joint owners of property in equal shares, therefore, they were having half share each in the property. Contents of Ex. PA Gift Deed are to be read in conjunction with the facts and revenue record proved on record through Ex. PD and Ex. PE, to substantiate or discard the plea of plaintiff set up in the plaint and in his oral deposition. Contents of Ex. PA indicate that Phulan Devi was having right to the extent of half share on the property existing on Khasra No. 1066. 15. In plaint in para 1, plaintiff has claimed that plaintiff and performa defendants No. 4 to 9 are owners of half share in Abadi Deh comprised in Khasra No. 1066 and remaining half share is owned and possessed by defendants No. 1 to 3. In response thereto defendants have given evasive reply. There is no specific denial in the written statement to the fact that plaintiff and performa defendants No. 4 to 9 are having title in Khasra No. 1066 to the extent of half share. In para 1 of preliminary objection of written statement filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 3, it has been stated that there are other families residing in Village Rasoli Tikka. What is the effect thereof and what right they have in the suit property, has nowhere been mentioned in the written statement, nor any single word has been uttered in this regard in the oral deposition of defendant No. 1, while appearing as DW-1 or in statement of DW-2. The fact of gifting the property by Phulan Devi to Chand has been admitted in the written statement. Existence of two houses on this Khasra No. is also admitted, but with further clarification that all defendants No. 1 to 3 and late Chand were residing in separate houses and existence of cowshed which was joint between the parties has been denied. 16. Plaintiff while appearing as PW-1 has re-iterated his version set up in the plaint. Existence of two houses on this Khasra No. is also admitted, but with further clarification that all defendants No. 1 to 3 and late Chand were residing in separate houses and existence of cowshed which was joint between the parties has been denied. 16. Plaintiff while appearing as PW-1 has re-iterated his version set up in the plaint. In the plaint, it is stated that one house was occupied by defendants No. 1 to 3 and another by late Chand, but the cowshed was joint. In oral statement also he has re-iterated that after gift, in one house, his father was living and in another, Brahmi Devi (mother of defendants No. 1 to 3) was residing, but the cowshed remained joint. Defendant No. 1, in his statement, as DW-1 is completely silent about the fact that there are other co-owners, ownership and possession of Phulan Devi to the extent of half share and ownership of remaining half share of defendants No. 1 to 3 in Khasra No. 1066. The said version has not been specifically denied by the defendants in written statement. Reply is evasive and while appearing as a witness in the Court, he has not deposed even a single word in this regard. Facts stated in the plaint have not been specifically denied. Even, evasive reply to plaint is not substantiated by the deposition of defendants in the Court. Therefore, plea of plaintiff is to be considered to have been admitted and contents of Ex. PA substantiate the same. 17. In document Ex. PA, it is specifically mentioned that in Khasra No. 1066 is Abadi Deh and jamabandis Ex. PB and PG substantiate the same. Ownership of half share of Phulan Devi in the property of Abadi Deh as stated in Ex. PA, substantiates the claim of plaintiff set up in the plaint, which has neither been specifically denied nor refuted in the oral deposition, while appearing as a witness in the Court. Therefore, plaintiff has been able to prove his right in Khasra No. 1066. 18. Undoubtedly, Khasra No. 1066 is Abadi Deh, which cannot be partitioned by the revenue authorities, but definitely suit for partition of such property is maintainable in the Civil Courts and thus suit filed by plaintiff for partition of Khasra No. 1066 is maintainable, as Ex. Therefore, plaintiff has been able to prove his right in Khasra No. 1066. 18. Undoubtedly, Khasra No. 1066 is Abadi Deh, which cannot be partitioned by the revenue authorities, but definitely suit for partition of such property is maintainable in the Civil Courts and thus suit filed by plaintiff for partition of Khasra No. 1066 is maintainable, as Ex. PA establishes the right of plaintiff and performa defendants on Abadi Deh, which entitles them to seek partition of the said property/land. Defendants have not denied the contents of Ex. PA or ownership right of plaintiff along with performa defendants No. 4 to 9 in the suit property. Therefore, in view of established and accepted right of plaintiff and performa defendants No. 4 to 9 in the suit land, they are entitled for a decree of partition of the land in Abadi Deh comprised in Khasra No. 1066. 19. Courts have been established for imparting justice. The objective of establishment of justice delivery system, i.e. Courts, is to resolve the issue and not only to adjudicate the matters and deliver judgments, that too mechanically. In present case both the Courts below have acted in mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective and have failed to construe the evidence on record, particularly Ex. PA in its true and right perspective, thus have arrived at a wrong conclusion. 20. It has come on record through Ex. PA that there were two houses and one cowshed on the Abadi Deh comprised in Khasra No. 1066 and the defendants have admitted the plea of plaintiff partially that one house was occupied by their predecessor-in-interest and another by predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff. In Gift Deed Ex. PA, right of Phulan to the extent of 50% was also gifted to Chand, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff. Defendants have admitted the transfer of property to Chand by way of gift by Phulan Devi, but have tried to deny the right of Chand or his successors-in-interest in cowshed by saying that there was no cowshed joint between the parties. Once the documents and its contents are admitted, the party doing so cannot chose or elect to accept one part and to deny another part of the said document. 21. Once the documents and its contents are admitted, the party doing so cannot chose or elect to accept one part and to deny another part of the said document. 21. Pw-2 Udham Singh in examination-in-chief has stated that the suit land is Abadi Deh and belongs to the parties to the suit only and other villagers are having separate Abadies. This assertion has not been questioned in cross-examination. The fact asserted in examination-in-chief, but not disputed in cross-examination, amounts to have been admitted and these facts have substantiated the plea of plaintiff taken in the plaint and in his deposition in the Court. 22. In view of above discussion, judgments passed by Courts below, impugned herein, are set aside and suit filed by plaintiff is decreed by passing a preliminary decree for partition of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 1066 for separating shares of plaintiff, performa defendants and other owners having right, title or interest therein with direction to the trial Court to appoint an serving or retired revenue Officer, not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, as Local Commissioner, to conduct and complete the partition proceedings with respect to partition of the suit land/property and separation of shares of plaintiff/performa defendants and/or other co-owners. If plaintiff and performa respondents or defendants No. 1 to 3 are found in possession of land in excess to their share, but belonging to opposite/other party, the same shall be restored to its rightful owner. 23. In case there is construction raised by either party upon the land in its possession in excess to its share, then the said party may offer equal land adjoining to the property of rightful owner entitled for that and in case of non availability of such suitable land adjoining to the property of such owner, double of such land situated at a shortest distance in nearby area suitable to such owner may be offered. 24. Local Commissioner shall complete his job on or before 31st October, 2020 and parties shall extend all necessary co-operation for conducting and completing the partition proceedings for resolving dispute, failure or non compliance on behalf of either party, construction on Abadi in excess to its share shall be demolished. 25. Local Commissioner on the basis of revenue record shall ascertain share of parties having right, title and interest in the suit property and thereafter he shall proceed further for partition accordingly. 25. Local Commissioner on the basis of revenue record shall ascertain share of parties having right, title and interest in the suit property and thereafter he shall proceed further for partition accordingly. 26. District Revenue Officer, Chamba is also directed to extend all necessary cooperation to facilitate Local Commissioner to complete his job within stipulated period. 27. In case of any difficulty, Local Commissioner shall report back to the trial Court, whereupon considering the entire facts and circumstances, trial court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law, warranted in the prevailing facts and circumstances without referring the matter to this Court. 28. In evidence on record, there is nothing to establish that any other person, not party to the suit, is also having right, title or interest in the suit land. However, in case during intervening period or otherwise, if any person is having the right either prior to filing of the suit or such right has accrued during intervening period, he shall have right to submit his representation/objection before the Local Commissioner to protect his right and his right shall be considered and protected by the Local Commissioner, with leave of the trial Court, in accordance with law. 29. Local Commissioner shall be appointed in presence of parties either in person or through counsel, on or before 14.8.2020. Fee of Local Commissioner shall be fixed by the trial Court in consultation with the parties at the time of appointment of Local Commissioner. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29th July, 2020. 30. During pendency of the appeal, it was claimed by plaintiff that matter has been amicably settled, but the said fact has also not been brought on record by producing legal and valid documents and the said plea has not been taken during the arguments for want of original document(s). However, in case of any settlement between the parties, either during pendency of matter in Court(s) or otherwise, even during pendency of partition proceedings, the Local Commissioner shall take care thereof and shall complete the partition proceedings in accordance with the compromise arrived at between the parties. 31. Plaintiff has also prayed for demolition of newly built joint cowshed forcibly constructed by defendants No. 1 to 3. 31. Plaintiff has also prayed for demolition of newly built joint cowshed forcibly constructed by defendants No. 1 to 3. The said construction was existing at the time of filing of suit and plaintiff/performa defendants can be compensated by giving land by defendants No. 1 to 3 after ascertaining the fact that as to whether such construction is on the land falling within the share of defendants No. 1 to 3 or is situated on land in excess to their share, if any, in possession of these defendants. In view of this, prayer for passing decree of demolition is not accepted. However, as detailed herein above, for non-cooperation in partitioning the suit land/property, instead of compensating the rightful owner, if possession of non-cooperative party is found on land in excess to its share, demolition of portion constructed on such excess land may be effected. 32. Local Commissioner shall submit his report on or before 15th November, 2020 in the trial Court, and the objections or report, if any, shall be preferred on or before 1st December, 2020 and thereafter trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. Parties shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps for passing final decree. 33. Parties are also directed to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and construction on the suit property, till partition proceedings are completed by the Local Commissioner so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Record be sent back immediately after ensuring procedural compliance forthwith including preparation of preliminary decree.