( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the learned Single judge dated 25th April, 2003, inter alia, holding that there was no oral partition of the suit property and the respondent was not estopped from filing the suit because parties were living in the suit property for more than 30 years, a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property was passed. A local commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition in equal shares.

( 2 ) MR. Pramod Aggarwala, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises and the observation in the impugned judgment is beyond the pleadings and the evidence on record. It was contended before us that when pursuant to the oral agreement between the parties, parties have acted upon the said oral agreement and living separately in specific portions in the said property for more than 30 years, the property stands partitioned and nothing more was required to be done. It was contended that the oral partition has to be given effect to partition of the property and the same was legally enforceable. It was contended that for such a long period, both the part