Judgment : 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014 passed by Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short, "BOR") whereby, the appeal No.3410/2013 filed by the petitioners/appellants/defendants (for short, “defendants”) has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff (for short, “plaintiff”) filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants (for short, “defendants”) and the proforma respondents No.2 to 10/defendants claiming the subject agricultural land to be their undivided ancestral property. Therein, the Court of Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Amer, Headquarter Jaipur (for short, “trial Court”) passed a preliminary decree of partition vide judgment dated 18.10.2012. The first appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendants came to be dismissed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2013 which was affirmed by the BOR while dismissing the second appeal preferred by the defendants vide judgment impugned dated 10.03.2014. 3. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the defendants made two-fold submissions; firstly, he submitted that in preliminary decree, the learned trial Court has not specified the share of the respective parties in the subject agricultural land; secondly, he submitted that the Courts below did not appreciate that the property was already partitioned and the suit was not maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and judgment and decree impugned dated 10.03.2014 be quashed and set aside and the suit be dismissed. 4. None for the plaintiff despite service. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that it is a formal party. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Although, in the operative portion of the judgment, trial Court has not specified shares of the respective parties; however, the trial Court framed the issue No.1 as under: 8. After analysing evidence on record, the issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff meaning thereby, the parties were found entitled for the respective shares in the subject ancestral land as mentioned therein. In view thereof, mere omission of their respective share in the operative portion of the judgment can be reckoned as a bonafide clerical error which neither goes to the root of the matter nor, causes any prejudice to the defendants. Further, when asked, learned counsel for the defendants admitted that no such objection was taken by them either before the first appellate authority or before the second appellate authority. 9. Further, when asked, learned counsel for the defendants admitted that no such objection was taken by them either before the first appellate authority or before the second appellate authority. 9. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the submission. 10. Qua another limb of submission made by learned counsel for the defendants, while deciding the issue No.3 against them, the learned trial Court recorded a categorical finding, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence submitted by the respective parties, that the defendants have miserably failed to establish that the subject property was already partitioned before institution of the suit. These findings have been upheld by the first appellate Court as also by the second appellate Court reappreciating the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the defendants has failed to demonstrate these findings to be suffering from any perversity. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.