The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid partition of agricultural land under the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing the need for a registered document or family settlement implemented by the revenue authorities.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Unsuccessful plaintiffs Bhagwan Ram and Prem Chand have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree 2.6.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1995 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Sunam who dismissed the suit of the present appellants. Some facts can be noticed as follows :

2. Plaintiffs, filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and possession alleging that the appellant No. 1 has 2/9th share and the appellant No. 2 has 1/9th share in the suit land measuring 6 kanals 15 marlas. The said land is near the abadi deh of the village and the appellants are in possession of the suit land. It is alleged that appellants No. 1 and 2 are in joint possession of the suit land. It is further alleged that the appellant and defendants No. 1 and 2 were in possession as co-sharers and no partition has been effected between the parties in respect of the same and as such parties are in joint possession of the suit land. It is further alleged that defendants No. 1, 2 and Vidya Devi daughter of Budh Ram who was father of the appellants had illegally sold the suit land to defendants No. 3 to 7. The said defendants had forcibly raised construction on the share of the appellants. It is further alleged that the appellants are entitled to joint possession of the suit land by removal of the construction raised thereon.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants mainly on the grounds that the suit land had fallen to the shares of the defendants No. 1 and 2 by way of family settlement, from the joint khewat of land measuring 138 kanal 3 marlas. The vendees defendants No. 3 to 7 are in possession of the suit land and their possession is legal and valid: Moreover, the appellants had been witnessing the progress of the construction raised by defendants No. 3 to 7 which was never objected to by the appellants.

4. From the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property? OPP

2. Whether the sale deed No. 37 dated 6A1988 alleged to be executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 6 and sale deed No. 1776 dated 4.7.1988 alleged to be executed by Vidya Devi in favour of defendant No. 2, sale deed No. 990 dated 27.5.1988 alleged to be executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 5, sale deed No. 960 dated 29.5.1988 alleged to be executed by defendants No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 7 are illegal, null and void? if so, its effect? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the alleged construction in the suit property? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit? OPD

5. Relief.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court appellants filed First Appeal before the First Appellate Court which dismissed the suit of the appellants for the reasons given in paras No. 9 and 10 as follows :-

"9. It is evident from the statement of appellant Bhagwan Ram that they had been cultivating 40 kanals of land from the khewat since 8-10 years. (PW.3) Chuhar Khan, who is one of the vendees of the respondents No. 1 and 2 had also admitted supporting the case of the respondents that a partition had been effected between the appellants and the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is specific admission of the appellants Bhagwan Ram that as per the compromise dated 16.10.1989 in the presence of respondents, the possession of the parties was changed. The learned counsel for the appellants referring to the decision of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case Darbara Singh and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Anr., cited as 1994 P.L.J. 25 submitted that private partition has to be entered in the revenue record, which was not implemented in the present case. So, when the partition was n