JUDGMENT : 1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2008 passed by Additional District Judge (FT) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.162/2004 (191/2004) titled as Om Narain Sharma Vs. Jagdish Narain Sharma & Ors., by which the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition, rendition of accounts, mesne profit, compensation and permanent injunction. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts, mesne profit, compensation and permanent injunction in which he stated that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are co-sharers as the predecessor-in-title Laxmi Narain Sharma left behind two sons namely Shri Narain Sharma and Jagdish Narain Sharma. Jagdish Narain Sharma expired in 1950 and he was survived by present plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 were having 1/2 share in the House bearing No.1740, situated in Jat Ke Kua Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. Plaintiff’s father and defendant No.1 had 1/2 share in the immovable property. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 had also agricultural land which was to be divided being ancestral property mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. Defendant No.1 had obstructed the supply of water and also disconnected the electricity of Bathroom. So, plaintiff filed the suit and prayed that property mentioned in para 2A to 2D be divided and injunction be granted in his favour. 3. Defendant No.1 had filed written statement and mentioned that partition was took place on 06.07.1977 and plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 are residing separately. No immovable property was left to be partitioned. So, suit be dismissed. 4. Trial court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties : (1) Whether property mentioned in para 2 of the plaint is joint undivided property of the parties, wherein the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had 1/2 share? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the property by getting it divided in metes and bound? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent and mandatory injunction as claimed in the plaint? (4) Whether the suit is undervalued? (5) Relief? (6) Whether as per the para 13 of the plaint, the plaintiff is entitled to get the rendition of accounts and to get the profitable amount of his share? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent and mandatory injunction as claimed in the plaint? (4) Whether the suit is undervalued? (5) Relief? (6) Whether as per the para 13 of the plaint, the plaintiff is entitled to get the rendition of accounts and to get the profitable amount of his share? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.5,00/-per month towards use and occupation charges as per para 14 of the plaint? (8) Whether this Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit for division of agricultural land? 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court wrongly decided the issue Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.1 and against the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that by way of evidence, plaintiff had proved the case that property mentioned in para 2 was ancestral property and plaintiff and defendant No.1 both were having 1/2 share in it. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that learned court below wrongly came to the conclusion that partition took place on 06.07.1977. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that defendant in his evidence clearly stated that he had memorandum of the partition but he had not submitted the same in evidence. So, adverse inference be drawn against the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that witnesses of the defendant Mohan Lal and Kamal Beniwal were interested witnesses and they are friends of defendant’s son. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff had adduced the evidence of Bhagwan Sahai Sharma, Mangilal Sharma, Gori Shankar Sharma, Rajesh Batra, Ram Kishore, Ratanlal Gaur and Hanuman Sahai and they in their statement clearly stated that the partition never took place. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff had exhibited the marriage card of Govind, who is son of the defendant in which firm Mehta Trading Corporation was written. So, it shows that property was undivided. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court decided the issue No.8 against the plaintiff. Agricultural land was undivided. Defendant had filed a partition suit of the agricultural land. So, it is clear that property was undivided between the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court wrongly assumed that plaintiff is taking rent from the tenant, so, partition took place. Agricultural land was undivided. Defendant had filed a partition suit of the agricultural land. So, it is clear that property was undivided between the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the trial court wrongly assumed that plaintiff is taking rent from the tenant, so, partition took place. So, judgment of the trial court be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Rama Nagappa Mahar Vs. Nagappa Mallappa Mahar & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 Karnataka 31; (2) Anar Bai & Ors. Vs. Manbhar Devi & Ors in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.119/1997 decided on 09.08.1999; (3) Roop Chand Vs. Indradevi & Ors. reported in AIR 1997 Madhya Pradesh 200; (4) Nandam Mohanamma & Ors. Vs. Markonda Narasimha Rao & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 Andhra Pradesh 8 and (5) Brajananda Pradhan Vs.Sachidananda Pradhan & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 Orissa 29. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that partition took place on 06.07.1977. The trial court rightly came to the conclusion that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendant also submitted that plaintiff in its cross-examination clearly stated that they were residing separately from 06.07.1977 and they were cooking food separately. Plaintiff in its statement clearly admitted the fact that he had rented his portion and getting rent from the tenant. So, it clearly shows that partition took place. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that it is an admitted position that defendant No.1 had raised construction in the year 1991-92 but plaintiff had not given any notice and had not filed the suit against it. It reveals that partition took place. So, finding of the trial court does not suffer from illegality or infirmity. So, appeal be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. 9. Plaintiff had filed the present suit for partition, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, mesne profit. Plaintiff in para 2 of the suit mentioned that partition never took place but during the cross-examination plaintiff admitted the fact that they were residing separately and he had tenant in his portion. 9. Plaintiff had filed the present suit for partition, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, mesne profit. Plaintiff in para 2 of the suit mentioned that partition never took place but during the cross-examination plaintiff admitted the fact that they were residing separately and he had tenant in his portion. Plaintiff also admitted the fact that he had taken separate electricity and water connection in the year 1981 and also admitted the fact that they are cooking food separately from 06.07.1977. Defendant had raised construction in 1991-92 but plaintiff had not given any notice and had not filed any suit for injunction. So, conduct of the plaintiff also shows that partition took place on 06.07.1977. Mere exhibition of the marriage card of Govind did not prove that property was undivided. The trial court in its order clearly mentioned that to prove his case, plaintiff could examine Madan Gopal and Shakuntla Devi, but he had not examined them to prove his case. So, in my considered opinion, finding of the trial court that partition took place on 06.07.1977 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed which stands dismissed accordingly. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Application No.15198/2017:- 11. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 submits that he had filed an application for modification of stay and submitted that due to interim stay, they are unable to get permission for construction and repairing. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also submits that defendant No.1 had sold the disputed property to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 had sold the disputed property to him. So, interim order passed by this Court be modified. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. 13. No ground for entertaining the present application is made out. It is accordingly disposed of.