settlement was not recorded in the revenue record would not be a ground to reject the same. In support, he has placed before me case of Ajmer Singh Vs. Dharam Singh , 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 541. In this case, the learned Single Judge of this court has gone into the effect of a private partition, which is not affirmed by the revenue authorities. It is held that failure to seek affirmation of private partition, if otherwise proved on record, can not be negated only for reason of non-affirmation from revenue authorities. It is a case where on the basis of evidence, it was found that partition was already effected and, therefore, the plaintiff was not the co-sharer on the date of sale of land and, thus, entitled to decree of pre-emption. The observations by this Court made in this case are unexceptionable. The question to be seen here is whether the petitioners were successful in proving the family partition. The family partition is not fully relied by the revenue officers not only on the ground that it was not recorded in the revenue record but also that it was disputed by the other co-sharers. The submission that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have sold their share and still sought partition can easily be pleaded before the revenue authorities. Only Naksha Be has been prepared and and, thus, the family partition, which has been arrived at, may be pleaded before the authorities concerned, if otherwise permissible as per law. The case has remained pending for too long only after preparation of Naksha Be . No case for interference on the basis of Naksha Be as pleaded is made out.
