1. Gurbachan Singh first moved the Revenue Court for partition of 69 Kanals 10 Marlas of land situate in village Hayat Nagar against Sadhu Singh s representatives on the plea that he was the owner of half share, according to the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70, and when the Revenue Court directed him to get his title decided in civil Court, this suit was filed.

2. The legal representative of Sadhu Singh contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff and Sadhu Singh acquired land in two villages. Hayat Nagar and Garden Colony Khojepur (Bhabra), and there was partition between them, regarding memorandum dated 3-7-1958 was recorded and since then the parties are in exclusive possession of their respective portions. The land of village Hayat Nagar along with small area of the other village was given to Sadhu Singh and the remaining to the plaintiff. The plaintiff later on exchanged his land with another person in village Hayat Nagar. On this basis, it was pleaded that he was estopped by his act and conduct to seek partition.

3. The trial Court by a well considered judgement and decree hold on appreciation of evidence that the partition was duly proved. The parties were in separate possession of the land allotted in partition of 1958 and in 1973 vide Exhibit D1, the plaintiff had exchanged the land allotted to him in village Bhabra, considering the same to be his own. The trial Court also referred to Rikhi Ram V/s. Sada Ram, AIR 1977 Punj and Har 94 and came to the conclusion that the unregistered document of partition marked A could not be read in evidence as a document of partition, but could be seen to find out the factum of partition and the nature of possession. Since the partition was proved from other evidence on record, i.e. from the statement of DW 1 to DW 4 coupled with the exchange made by the plaintiff himself, the trial court dismissed the suit for partition. On plaintiff s appeal the lower appellate Court, read the Rikhi Ram s case (supra) in a slightly different way and without reference to the oral evidence of partition, the exchange made by the plaintiff and the other facts and circumstances on the record, held that since there was no other evidence on record the document marked `A was excluded out of consideration as it required registration and further held that the partition was not proved, and, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. This is defendants second appeal.

4. While it is true that sometimes and even many a time co-sharers without division of the land occupy separate portions of agricultural land for the purposes of cultivation, but whenever it is proved that the partition in fact did take place and was given effect to and accepted by the parties for some time, then that partition is normally to be given effect to and a party cannot be allowed to back out of it except for justifiable grounds. Keeping in view of this, rule was laid down in Rikhi Ram s case (supra) and other cases which have been referred therein.

5. In the instant case the partition is clearly proved from document marked `A . However, such unregistered document would not be admissible except to prove the factum of partition and nature of possession. Then we have the statements of DW1 to DW4 who have clearly proved that there was family partition between the plaintiff and Sadhu Singh and the parties entered into separate possession of their respective portions in accordance with partition. Not only this, the plaintiff himself continued to accept the partition entered into in 1958 till 1973 when he exchanged the portion of land allotted to him with a third person. It appears that in the meantime the defendants had improved the land by setting up tubewell etc. and the plaintiff wanted to claim half share out of the land of village Hayat Nagar without making reference to the land which the parties jointly owned in other village i.e. Garden Colony Khojepur (Bhabra), major portion of which was allotted to him. Not to se