JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J.

Appellant-plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 29.08.1988 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed as well as judgment and decree dated 15.02.1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby appeal filed by the appellant - plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that appellant - plaintiff Balwant Singh filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property as described in the plaint, with a further prayer that mutation No. 833 dated 25.07.1970, mutation No. 846 dated 20.09.1971 as well as order of Settlement Officer dated 29.09.1981 with regard to the partition of suit property alongwith mutation No. 1173 sanctioned on the basis of this order are illegal, null, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that Fakir Chand was the owner in possession of the suit property. He had three sons namely Rattan Singh, Sajjan Singh and Jawar Singh. Rattan Singh was issueless while Jawar Singh had four daughters and Sajjan Singh had six children i.e. three sons and three daughters including plaintiff. Pedigree table as available in the plaint is as under:-

3. It is pleaded that properties of the Joint Hindu Family situated at Bikaner, Kalyana and Dadri were partitioned before 1953 in a family partition while the property at village Kadma was joint. In respect to the property at village Kadma i.e. property in question, family partition/settlement, it is stated, was effected vide registered partition deed dated 03.10.1953. Mutation No. 371 was also sanctioned on the basis of this partition. Shares of the three brothers - Rattan Singh, Sajjan Singh, Jawar Singh as well as to Balwant Singh, Bhagwant Singh and Hari Kishan, the three sons of Sajjan Singh are detailed therein. Mutation in this regard, it is pleaded, was entered and sanctioned on 06.01.1954 but the said mutation was wrongly cancelled in the year 1974. It is stated that in the year 1956, Rattan Singh died and mutation of inheritance was entered and sanctioned in favour of Sajjan Singh and Jawar Singh on 14.10.1959. Sajjan Singh father of the plaintiff also died in the year 1971. Mutation of inheritance of the above said persons was entered and sanctioned on 25.07.1970 and 20.09.1971 respectively, which was claimed to be illegal, null, void and not binding on the rights of the parties in view of partition of property on 03.10.1953. It is stated that mutation No. 371 was wrongly cancelled and the Consolidation Officer passed order dated 29.06.1981 defining the shares of Sajjan Singh and Jawar Singh. Plaintiff filed an appeal challenging order of Consolidation Officer, which was dismissed by the Director Consolidation. Mutation No. 1173 dated 16.09.1981 was thereafter sanctioned. Plaintiff filed civil suit when the defendants purportedly refused to admit his claim.

4. Suit was contested by defendants No. 2 to 8 i.e. respondents No. 1 to 6 in this appeal. Other defendants were proceeded exparte. Factum of partition in 1953 was contested. Defendants denied that parties ever took possession of their respective shares in view of partition dated 05.10.1953. Partition, it is pleaded, was never acted upon and was infact cancelled on 16.07.1968. It is further stated that during consolidation proceedings in respect to the suit property, the same was partitioned and order was passed by the Consolidation Officer in this respect on 21.06.1981. Plaintiff preferred an ap