Unregistered family partition deeds creating rights in praesenti require registration; exclusive possession by co-sharers does not confer ownership.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

These two Regular Second Appeals have arisen out of the proceedings of the same suit. Suit for declaration (registered as Civil Suit No.66 of 1980, instituted on 22.03.1979) filed by plaintiffs was decreed by trial court on 6.11.1981. Two appeals emanated, one (registered as CA No.4- 13 of 1982/1986) by some of the defendants; and the other (registered as CA No.7-13/5-13 of 1982/1986) by subsequent vendees from all the defendants. Both appeals were dismissed by the first appellate court vide two separate judgments both dated 21.10.1986 and hence these appeals.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

Admitted Facts:

3. One Dhanna was owner of 142 Bighas 11 Biswas of land situated in village Kasni Kalan, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani (Haryana) [herein referred to as 'suit land' or 'land of Kasni Kalan']. Said Dhanna also owned 20 Bighas 5 Biswas of land besides half share in another 32 Bighas 6 Biswas of land situated in village Kalali, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani (Haryana) [hereinafter referred to as 'land of village Kalali']. On the death of Dhanna, he was succeeded by his three sons namely, Hazari, Hira and Sheo Chand, who inherited the land of both the villages in equal shares.

4. Plaintiffs of the suit Ranjit etc. [Respondents N: 1 to 4 in RSA N: 1296 of 1987] are the legal heirs of Hazari son of Dhanna. Defendants No.1 to 5 - Amar Singh etc. [Appellants & performa respondent N: 5 in RSA N: 1296 of 1987] are the legal heirs of Hira son of Dhanna; whereas defendants No.6 to 12 - Smt. Dhampa etc. [Performa respondent N: 6 to 12 in RSA N: 1296 of 1987] are the legal heirs of Sheo Chand son of Dhanna.

Case pleaded by the plaintiffs:

5.1 According to plaintiffs, their father Hazari son of Dhanna had started living in village Kasni Kalan and also started cultivating the land left by his father in this village. On the other hand, Hira and Sheo Chand i.e. predecessor of defendants No.1 to 5 and defendants No.6 to 12, respectively, started residing in village Kalali, who exclusively started cultivating the land left by their father in said village Kalali. Later, on the death of Hazari, plaintiffs started cultivating the land left by their father in village Kasni Kalan; whereas on the death of Hira, his sons i.e. defendants No.1 to 5 started cultivating land left by their father in village Kalali. Sheo Chand continued irrigating his land in village Kalali.

5.2 It was pleaded further that on 06.06.1955, private partition (Ex.P1) of the ancestral land was effected between the plaintiffs on one hand and Sheo Chand on the other hand in the presence of Panchayat, in which it was settled that plaintiffs shall be exclusively owner in possession of the land situated in village Kasni Kalan, in which Sheo Chand or his legal heirs will have no right, title or interest. Sheo Chand accepted 400/- from the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs relinquished all their rights and interest in the land of village Kalali, which was under the ownership and possession of Sheo Chand. Similarly, another family partition was effected on 25.03.1957 (Ex.P2) between plaintiffs on one hand and defendants No.1 to 5 i.e. legal heirs of Hira on the other hand, whereby defendants No.1 to 5 accepted Rs. 600/- and relinquished all their rights in the land of village Kasni Kalan; whereas plaintiffs relinquished all their rights and interest in the property situated in village Kalali. It was pleaded that in this manner, plaintiffs became exclusive owners in possession of the suit land i.e. land situated in village Kasni Kalan; whereas, defendants became exclusive owners in possession of the land of village Kalali. It was pleaded further that though parties have been in exclusive possession of land accordingly, but inadvertently, the terms of family partition were not incorporated in the revenue record, in as much as, defendants continued to be shown as co-owners of the suit property situated