Mr. Darshan Singh, J.: - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar, has been dismissed.

2. Appellant-plaintiff Gurdev Singh has filed the suit for separate possession of ½ share by way of partition by metes and bounds of house no. 30/1 measuring 43’6'’ x 76 feet as depicted in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. Originally, Ranbir Singh @ Rania, the father of plaintiff was owner of the house in dispute. He executed a valid Will dated 31.03.1976 in favour of plaintiff, his mother Smt. Ram Rakhi, Gurbir Singh (predecessor of the defendants no.1 to 4) and Paramjit Singh (defendant no.5) in equal shares. He expired on 13.11.1986. After his demise, the plaintiff, his mother Smt. Ram Rakhi, Gurbir Singh (the predecessor of the defendants no.1 to 4) and Paramjit Singh (defendant no.5) became owner of the suit property to the extent of ¼ share each. Smt. Ram Rakhi also executed a valid Will dated 28.03.1988 in favour of the plaintiff. She died on 16.10.1995. After inheriting her share, the plaintiff became owner of ½ share in the suit property. It was further pleaded that the family partition deed 13.08.1996 was executed between the parties. But, the property was not partitioned by metes and bounds and the site plan thereof was wrong and ambiguous which was prepared at the instance of Gurbir Singh. The said partition deed was never acted upon and suit property continued to be joint. The plaintiff is in possession of northern-eastern portion and the first floor thereof. The defendants started collecting building material to raise construction in the disputed property. Hence this suit.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents-defendants on the grounds inter alia that property in dispute was mutually partitioned by way of family partition on 13.08.1996. It was separated into different portions as shown in the site plan attached with the family partition. They were in possession in separate portions on the basis of a family partition. They also disputed the validity of the Will dated 28.03.1988 allegedly executed by Smt. Ram Rakhi in favour of the appellant-plaintiff.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court after filing of the replication by the plaintiff-appellant:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to separate as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

3. Whether there is no cause to file there present suite?OPD

4. Whether the site plan attached with the plaintiff is incorrect? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is stopped to file the present suit by his own acts and conducts?OPD

6. Whether the present suit is not maintainable?OPD

7. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD

8. Relief.

5. On appreciating the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal filed by the plaintiffappellant was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.

6. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and have meticulously examined the record of the case.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Will Ex.P-1 was validly executed by Smt. Ram Rakhi in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. But, the appellant-plaintiff was non-suited by the learned First Appellate Court by relying upon the partition deed dated 13.08.1996 Ex.D-2 that the partition had already taken place between the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff contended that the family partition dated 13.08.1996 Ex.D-2 cannot be taken into consideration as the same was unregistered document. As per the case of the