The details of a legal dispute regarding the partition of properties left by Late Rameshwar Nath Soral among his legal heirs. The appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court that upheld the decree of the Trial Court concerning the division of assets. The primary contention revolves around the valuation of properties and the allocation of rights among the heirs. Despite attempts at mediation and conciliation, the case has been ongoing for over two decades.

1. Introduction to the Appeal:

   • The appeal challenges the High Court's decision affirming the Trial Court's judgment on the partition of assets left by Late Rameshwar Nath Soral.

2. Background of the Dispute:

   • The dispute arises from the partition of properties left by the deceased, survived by three sons and two daughters.
   • The appellants primarily dispute the partition concerning the roof rights of a specific property, Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota, and another property, House No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.

3. Legal Proceedings:

   • Various appeals were filed challenging different aspects of the partition, including issues related to daughters' rights, jewelry, and valuation of properties.
   • The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree, determining equal shares for all legal heirs, which was upheld by the High Court.

4. Valuation and Final Decree:

   • A valuer was appointed to assess the properties, and a final decree was passed by the Trial Court in 2009, allocating specific portions to each party.

5. Contentions of the Parties:

   • The appellants argue that the valuation did not account for the potential value of roof rights, which should result in equal rights for all co-sharers.
   • The respondents contend that the valuation was appropriately assessed, and the appellants are attempting to create issues out of minor details.

6. Court's Decision:

   • After reviewing the arguments and relevant records, the court dismisses the appeal.
   • The court emphasizes that the case highlights the bitterness among legal heirs and the need for alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation and conciliation, in family disputes.

Conclusion:
The court finds no merit in the appeal and dismisses it, emphasizing the importance of exploring alternative dispute resolution methods in family disputes to avoid prolonged litigation.