The main legal point established in the judgment is that an alleged partition deed must be acted upon to conclusively vest and divest all co-sharers in the property, and unregistered partition deeds are not accepted in law. Additionally, partial partitions are not valid under the law.

Mahesh Graver, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 29.8.1980 and 24.11.1984 passed respectively by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Phillaur (hereinafter described as the trial Court) and the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (referred to hereinafter as the first appellate Court) whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.l was decreed and the appeal of the defendant Nos.l to 3-appellants was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 81 kanals and 19 marlas of land as described in the headnote of the plaint. It was averred that defendant No.l-Sham Singh (since deceased) was father of the plaintiff; that defendant no.l along with other defendants, namely, Jhalman Singh and Jarnail Singh, as also the plaintiff constituted a joint Hindu family which had land to its credit; that the land so held by the family was ancestral in nature; that defendant No.l had partitioned the property held by joint Hindu family and the land in question was given to the plaintiff and he was asked to pay Rs.5000/- to defendant Nos.2 & 3 which he did; that defendant No.l had retained one Khasra number with him while defendant no.2- Jhalman Singh was given seven acres of land and defendant No.3-Jarnail Singh was given six acres of land; that memorandum of partition was also reduced in writing which was written by a regular deed-writer and the original was kept by defendant No.l,although in the revenue record the land still remained in in his name, whereas the cultivation was shown separately as per the partition deed; that the plaintiff improved the land in dispute at a great expense of Rs.60,000/- and because of this improvement, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 became jealous of him as the land had become superior and cultivable; that on that account, defendant Nos.l to 3 tried to wriggle out of the partition and wanted to have the land in dispute back; that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 mortgaged some portion of the land in dispute with defendant no.4 which affected the ownership of the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit had to be filed.

3. Upon notice, defendant Nos.l to 3 appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. The relationship between the parties as stated in the plaint was admitted, but it was denied that they constituted a joint Hindu family. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was residing separately for the last many years; and that they were agriculturists and Jats of Jalandhar district and were governed by custom. It was alleged that no partition as pleaded by the plaintiff had taken place and no writing to that effect was ever prepared. It was pleaded that even if some writing of partition is proved, the same was result of fraud and the partition was actually never acted upon. The improvement on the land in question as claimed by the plaintiff was also denied.

4. Defendant No.4, in his separate written statement, denied the allegations of the plaintiff and inter-alia pleaded that the property in the hands of defendant No. 1 was self-acquired and that a portion thereof has rightly been mortgaged with him.

5. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 formed Joint Hindu Family? OPP

2. Whether the property in dispute is the Joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiff and defendants No.l to 3 and is ancestral? OPP

3. Whether the suit property had fallen to the share of the plaintiff in partition, as alleged. If so, to what effect? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property? OPP

5. Whether the alleged writing effecting partition is the result of fraud, mis-representation and undue influence? OPD

6. Whether the defendant No.l mortgaged the suit property for consideration. If so, to what effect? OPD

7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 1 to 3

9. wh