Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This petition questions the correctness of revisional order dated 3.8.2016, arising out of rejection of application for grant of benefit under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, preferred during preparation of final decree, whereby the issue has been remitted to the trial Court for passing a fresh order in light of the observations made.

2. Facts which are not in issue are that late Khikharam was the owner in possession of the property in question i.e. House No. 32/8, Gandhi Colony, Muzaffarnagar, who died on 2.7.1955 leaving behind his two sons, namely Suraj Bhan and Madan Lal. Suraj Bhan instituted original suit No. 749 of 1988, claiming exclusive right over House No. 32/8 as well as 1/3rd share in another House No. 30/4, Gandhi Nagar, purchased in the name of widow of Madan Lal, as well as relief of partition and possession in respect thereof in case he was not found in possession. In para-13 and 14 of the plaint it was alleged that a family settlement took place in July, 1959, between the two brothers, aforesaid, and their mother Smt. Rukmani Bai in following words:

^^13- ;g fd ekg tqykbZ lu~ 1959 bZΠesa oknh] enu yky rFkk Jherh :de.kh ckbZ ds e/; Qsfeyh lsfVyesUV gqvk vkSj mlds vuq:i edku uEcj 32@8 mDr ds ekfyd cnLrwj oknh o enu yky jgs ysfdu mlesa gdwd fjgk;r Jherh :de.kh ckbZ dks fn;s x;s vkSj blds vykok mUgsa mDr Jh lsokjke ij okftc jde rFkk ethn 10]000@& :i;s viuh bPNkuqlkj [kpZ djus ds fy;s fn;s x;s vkSj mUgsa 25 rkSyk lksus ds tsojkr Hkh feys vkSj r; ik;k fd mDr 10]000@& :i;s rFkk lsokjke ij okftc jde ds vykok 'ks"k lEifRr o dCts Jherh :de.kh ckbZ ds ekfyd Hkh oknh o enu yky cjkcj gksxsA bl Qsfeyh lsfVyesUV esa oknh dks edku tyh dksBh rFkk enu yky dks edku csxe ckx feykA

14- ;g fd ckngw Jherh :de.kh nsoh us cjtkeUnh oknh o enu yky mDr nksuksa edkukr okdsa esjB csp dj rFkk mDr tsojkr ls izkIr jde ls edku uEcj 30@4 xka/kh dkyksuh ysdj mlesa ethn fuekZ.k djk;k vkSj bl izdkj edku uEcj 30@4 esa Hkh fgLlk oknh o enu yky cjkcj 2 gqvkA enu yky dh pky pyu [kjkc Fkk pqukWps edku uEcj 32@8 dk mldk vk/kk Hkkx ckngw Jherh :de.kh ckbZ ds uke jtkeUnh ls eqUrfyd djk fy;k x;kA**

In para 19 of the plaint plea of fresh family settlement made in 1979 was asserted, and it was alleged that as per it the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of House No. 32/8 and acquired 1/3rd share in House No. 30/4.

3. A written statement was filed denying exclusive right of the plaintiff over House No. 32/8, while accepting plaintiff’s half share over it and claiming that other property belonged exclusively to Smt. Krishna Kumari widow of Madan Lal. Family settlement of 1959 was admitted, whereas plea of fresh settlement of 1979 was denied. A counter claim was also made vide para 41 to 43 of written statement, which is extracted hereinafter :

^^41- ;g fd izfroknhx.k dks dksbZ ,rjkt blesa ugh gS fd edku uEcj 32@8 dk caVokjk dj fy;k tkosA

42- ;g fd oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj fMdyjs'ku djkus dk ugha gS eŒuaŒ 30@4 izfroknh uEcj 1 dh rUgk feyfd;r gS vkSj eŒuaŒ 32@8 xka/kh dkyksuh esa oknh dk 1@2 fgLlk o izfroknhx.k dk 1@2 fgLlk vkSj izfroknhx.k viuk 1@2 fgLlk eŒuaŒ 32@8 xka/kh dkyksuh esa Dyse djrs gSA vkSj rdlhe ls [okg gSA vkSj mldks rQlhe fd;k tkosA izfroknhx.k dksVZ Qhl vnk djus ds fy, rS;kj gSA

43- ;g fd eŒuaŒ 32@8 dk oSY;wos'ku de fd;k x;k gS mldh dher de ls de Ms< yk[k :i;s gksuh pkfg, Fkh ysfdu pwafd oknh us mldh oSY;wos'ku 50]000@&½ dh gS pwafd izfroknhx.k dk fgLlk vk/kk gS vr% dksVZ Qhl rdlhe ds fy, fuLQ fgLls 25000½ ds 1@4 ;kfu 6225½ ij eqcfyx 797&50 iSls dk vnk fd;k tkrk gS vkSj izfroknhx.k dks eŒuaŒ 32@8 ds vk/ks fgLls ij rdlhe djds tqnkxkuk n[ky fnyk tkosaA**

4. Trial Court dismissed the suit on 26.7.2004 and decreed the counter claim with a specific finding that partition of all movable and immovable property between the brothers had taken place in 1959, vide Paper No. 38A, and they seized to be members of joint family thereafter. Purchase of House No. 30/4, after settlement in 1959, by the widow