effected between the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, admittedly the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not co-parceners and as such, there is no question of any partition being effected between a coparcener and stranger to the property. As far as decree for possession is concerned, the Trial Court had framed the issue whether the Plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession and answered the same in affirmative. There is no challenge by the Plaintiff, at least demonstrated to this Court, as regards non grant of decree for possession despite answering issue in the affirmative. The absence of decree for possession does not raise substantial question of law. Perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court would indicate that there has been a declaration of half of the share of the Plaintiff in the suit property and for partition to be effected. The evidence on record does not indicate any perversity in the finding and is in according to the well settled position in law most of the facts being undisputed. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises.
