A prior partition among family members is irrevocable unless fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation is proven.

1. The substantial questions of law involved, framed, and to be answered in the defendant's second appeal are as under:

'1. Whether the first appellate Court is justified in revoking the partition already made by the ancestors of the parties on the ground of unequal share in the suit property, ignoring the fact that there is no allegation of fraud and unfair dealing in the partition already made?

2. Whether the first appellate Court is justified in revoking the partition which was become final in the life time of the ancestors of the parties?'(For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court).

2. The following essential facts which are required for answering the substantial question of law are as under:

2.1. The following genealogical tree will demonstrate the relationship among the parties.

(Editors Note: Tabular matter omitted)

2.2. The plaintiffs 1 to 6 / respondents herein filed a Civil Suit for declaration of their title, permanent injunction and partition of the suit property shown in the plaint in para 9. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs and defendants are family members and have common ancestors. It was pleaded that father of defendant No.1 to 5 namely, Mahadev is uncle of Gada plaintiff's (1 to 2), father. It was pleaded that the total suit property ad - measuring 20.36 acres is jointly recorded in the name of said Mahadev and Gada. It was also pleaded in para 6 of the plaint that there was mutual oral partition between Mahadev and late Shri Gada and thereafter, on 21-07-1982, the name of Gada was also recorded in the revenue records along with Mahadev since 1961-62. It was further pleaded that though there was mutual oral partition between the parties, but it was not separately recorded in revenue records which has given rise to the dispute between the parties, but the plaintiffs are in possession of 7.91 acres of agriculture suit land, whereas and defendants are in possession of 12.45 acres of the land and therefore, by making equal partition, plaintiffs are entitled to additional 2.27 acres of the land and the relief for declaration of title & confirmation of possession as they are in possession of 7.91 acres of land in addition to what are having.

3. The defendants have filed written statement denying that the plaintiffs and defendants are family members. It was pleaded that mother of Gada namely, Dasmi Bai, resident of Village Chhotekawali left her matrimonial house and used to work as labourer in the house of Shri Mahadev and the name of Gada was recorded in connivance with the revenue officials whereas the said Mahadev had no knowledge about it and the plaintiffs have no title interest on the suit property as such suit be dismissed with cost.

4. The trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of 7.91 acres of the suit land and not entitled for any decree.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgement of trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court by its judgement reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit recording a finding that the plaintiffs and defendants are family members and have common ancestors and suit property is ancestral property. It was held that as per family arrangement executed between the plaintiffs and defendants, the plaintiffs were given separate possession of 7.91 acres of land and defendants were given possession of remaining 12.45 acres of the land. Since the plaintiffs are in occupation