The burden of proof lies on the party claiming an oral family settlement, and substantive and reliable evidence is required to establish such a settlement.

SNEH PRASHAR, J.

1. This was Regular Second Appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff Kuldip Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) impugning the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 144 of 26.05.2007 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, partly decreeing the suit for actual possession by way of partition instituted by the appellant against respondents-defendants Sat Pal and another (hereinafter referred to as the “respondents”) which was upheld by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2014.

2. The facts garnered from the record are as under:-

Appellant Kuldip Singh filed a suit for actual possession by way of partition of land underneath and structure thereon to the extent of half share of area described as Khata No. 22, Khatoni No. 299, Killa No. 77/13 measuring 2 Kanals, situated in village Dholowal HB No. 154, Tehsil and District Pathankot, as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). He pleaded that the respondents are his real brothers. Apart from the suit land, they own residential house in village abadi constructed in about 17 Marlas of land. He and Sat Pal (respondent no. 1) had jointly built the residential house in an area of one Kanal and the remaining one Kanal is Barani but being attached to the house is used as kitchen garden. Though the parties are recorded as owners to the extent of 1/3rd share each, but the fact is that as per mutual settlement, he (appellant) and Sat Pal (respondent no. 1) had relinquished 1/3rd share each in the residential house in favour of Amar Nath (respondent no. 2) making him exclusive owner of the same. In lieu thereof, Amar Nath (respondent no. 2) had relinquished 1/3rd share in the suit land as a result of which he (appellant) and Sat Pal (respondent no. 1) had become joint owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share each. As Sat Pal (respondent no. 1) intended to oust him and grab valuable portion of the suit land, he filed a suit for injunction, which was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2006.

3. Accordingly, by way of present suit, the appellant prayed for partition of the suit land by metes and bounds.

4. The respondents contested the suit raising objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the appellant to file the suit and concealment of true and material facts by him. They denied relinquishment of their respective shares in the house or the suit land as alleged by the appellant and submitted that the appellant has no right or concern with the residential house constructed in village Dholowal.

5. On the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of partition? OPP.

(2) Whether the suit not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

(3) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

(4) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, if so its effect? OPD.

(5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

(6) Relief.

6. To substantiate his pleadings, the appellant himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and proved Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 (Ex.P1), judgment dated 26.10.2006 (Ex.P2) and decree sheet (Ex.P3). However, the respondents failed to lead any evidence and their evidence was closed by court order.

7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record, learned trial Court partly decreed the suit to the extent that the appellant is entitled to separate possession by way of partition of his 1/3rd share in the suit land.

8. Appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2012 passed by learned trial Court which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Pathankot vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2014.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant