1. This is an appeal from judgment and order dated 26.8.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandrapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 165 of 1985 whereby judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 1981 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajura on 29.3.1985 was reversed.

2. It is not in dispute that Ganu Nagrale had died in the year 1974-75 and his wife had predeceased him in 1973-74. Ganu had three sons. Eldest son Hari died in the year 1973. However, he was separated in 1950-51 and land admeasuring 12 and half acres was given to his share. The joint family property viz. old survey number 23 (renumbered as survey number 289) and old survey number 25 (re-numbered as survey numbers 209 and 210) was partitioned in the year 1966 after appellant and respondent were separated. Old survey number 23 (new 289) was given in the share of plaintiff Atmaram and old survey no. 205 (new 209, 210) was given in the share of defendant Baliram. Mutation entries in revenue record relied upon in the suit proceedings as exhibits 69, 70, 77, 78 and 79 indicated that partition had been effected accordingly and since 196667 parties were cultivating the land given in their share separately as Ganu Nagrale himself had effected partition during his life-time.

3. Plaintiff Atmaram instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajura claiming possession of 3 acres of land from his brother Baliram (defendant) or in the alternative, for partition of entire landed property equally by metes and bounds, claiming half share in the entire property. According to plaintiff, after the death of his father Ganu, immoveable property of Ganu was partitioned between him and defendant. Land survey number 289 came to the share of plaintiff as also further 4 acres of land from survey no. 210 while land survey no. 209 (remaining land) and survey no. 210 was given to the share of defendant. Plaintiff referred to the dispute as to immovable property initiated by defendant Baliram under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which was decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura in favour of plaintiff, but the revisional court decided it in favour of defendant. Plaintiff sent registered notice through his counsel to defendant and demanded 3 acres and 20 gunthas out of land survey no. 210, but the defendant denied the claim. Thus, plaintiff filed suit for possession of land or in the alternative for equal partition.

4. Defendant resisted suit claim by filing written statement. He contended that property was partitioned in the year 1966-67 and entries in revenue record were effected accordingly. He denied claim of plaintiff that there was no partition and that there was oral family arrangement of temporary nature.

5. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 29.3.1985 directed equal division of land survey nos. 289, 210, 209 of village Bamanwada between the parties. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 165 of 85. The 1st Appellate Court reversed judgment and decree of the trial Court and thereby dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal.

6. This appeal was admitted on 30.4.1998 on the following substantial question of law :-

.“Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court?

7. The question of law framed earlier was re-formulated vide order dated 30.9.2009 as under:-

“Whether the conclusion of the First Appellate Court that there was in fact a partition of the suit property on account of the long standing entries in the revenue record was correct or as suggested by the plaintiff it could only be treated as family arrangement?”

8. The answer to this substantial question of law has to be answered in the manner that it was a partition of joint family property acted upon since 1966-67 and evidenced by long-standing mutation entries in revenue records. In other words, it was not a temporary oral family arrangement as claimed by th