“12. So far second substantial question of law is concerned, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has taken this Court through the pleadings and evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, but has not been able to show that any part thereof has been misread and misinterpreted by the first appellate Court to come to the conclusion that the land in dispute stood already partitioned. In para 7 of the plaint, there is mention of family settlement without giving further particulars thereof, whereas, the oral evidence pertains to partition, which is not supported by the revenue record produced by the plaintiff. Partition, whether by way of family settlement or family arrangement or by the Revenue Officer by giving effect to the family partition or settlement by metes and bounds should be such which may conclusively establish the respective shares of the parties so as to stop further dispute in between them. Vague assertions in regard to the share of one party and that too which is not proved from the evidence, cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that a partition had taken place. Further, mere arrangement in regard to the cultivation of the land cannot be termed as partition though such arrangement at the time of final partition by the Revenue Officer should be given due consideration in order to maintain possession of the parties intact. Therefore, the first appellate Court has rightly set aside the findings of the trial court to hold that the land in dispute was not partitioned as alleged by the plaintiff. The Substantial Question of Law No. 2 is answered accordingly.”
