JUDGMENT :

1. The defendant No.1/appellant herein has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 27.07.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Appeal No.60A/2016, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been allowed and judgment and decree dated 16.06.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.58-A/2013 by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Marwahi, District Bilaspur has been reversed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the defendant No.1/appellant herein, is that the original plaintiff/respondent Chiraunji Lal had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over 0.10 acre of land situated at village Sakola, P.C. No. 30, Revenue Circle Pendra, District Bilaspur, inter-alia on the ground that total 0.15 acre of land was purchased from Mangal Singh through registered sale deed dated 04.06.2007 and thereafter, the land was got mutated by the Gram Panchayat, Sakola vide Resolution No.4, Mutation No.14 dated 06.06.2008, according to which, the name of plaintiff was recorded over 0.10 acre of land and name of defendant No.1 was recorded over 0.05 acre of land. Thereafter, the defendant No.1/appellant herein filed Revenue Case No.80- A-6-A/2012-13 before the Tahsildar, Pendra for recording his name over 0.025 acre of land as 0.075 acre of land was purchased by plaintiff and defendant through sale deed, but the plaintiff in clandestine manner got mutated his name over 0.10 acre of land. The plaintiff was raising construction, therefore, stay was granted by Tahsildar and the building material were also seized by him. On 08.04.2023, the Tahsildar passed the mutation order in favour of the appellant/defendant. Thereafter, an appeal bearing Revenue Appeal No. 63-A-6-A/12-13 was preferred by the plaintiff before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pendra Road, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2013. The plaintiff sought relief to declare the orders passed by the Tahsildar and S.D.O. (Revenue) null and void & return of building materials.

3. In written statement, the defendant No.1 denied all allegations and contended that an order of mutation was got passed by Gram Panchayat in a clandestine manner, and the same has been set aside by the Tahsildar and S.D.O.

4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 16.06.2016, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the partition deed, which has been relied upon by the plaintiff, is not registered according to Section 17 of the Indian Succession Act, therefore, it is not admissible according to Section 35 of Stamps Act.

5. The plaintiff/respondents herein filed an appeal against the said order and the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of learned trail Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.07.2017 & decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff/respondents. Hence, this appeal filed by the defendant No.1/appellant herein.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court below is illegal, contrary to law and facts and is liable to be set-aside. The learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the burden to prove partition between the parties was upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff has failed to prove the partition. Learned counsel further submits that the mutation order was not passed by the Gram Panchayat in accordance with law as no notice was given to the appellant before passing the order of mutation. Learned counsel also submits that the partition deed is not a registered document according to Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, therefore, the same is not admissible. Learned counsel also submits that the sale deed dated 04.06.2007 does not describe the share of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and plaintiff has failed to examine Mangal Singh, owner of the suit