JUDGMENT
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is defendants’ appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated 15th May, 1978 by which the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed.
2. Briefly put, Lachhman Singh-plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the property details of which are given in the head-note of the plaint, and further sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession or to get the suit property partitioned. The case of the plaintiff was that he along with the defendants was owner of about twenty years back and since then the parties were in possession of their respective share without any interference from each other. This claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants on the ground that no family partition had taken place between the parties ; that the plaintiff was in possession of more land than his share ; and that there was no passage in the property in dispute to reach the houses of the parties etc
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
“1. Whether family partition took place between the parties ? OPP
2. Whether the parties are now in possession of their respective shares falling to their lot on partition ?
3. Whether there is no proper passage in the land of the defendants ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has made any improvement on the suit land ? OPP
5. Relief
4. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence led, came to the conclusion that the parties had partitioned their joint holdings, were in possession of their respective shares and were cultivating the same. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed.
5. The lower appellate Court, on reappraisal of the evidence, too came to the conclusion that the parties had partitioned their joint holdings and were in possession of their respective shares. The appellate Court further observed that the entries in Jamabandis recorded them to be in possession of separate land which was almost equal in area. Even quality-wise the parties were recorded to be in possession of almost equal share of Chahi as well as Barani land. Besides, the parties had installed their separate tubewells in the land under their cultivation.
6. Before me, the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has urged that the alleged family partition had not been given effect to in the record of rights. Agricultural land can be partitioned either by registered document Which is given effect to in the revenue records or only by getting mutation entered and Khata separated or by getting it implemented by moving the revenue authorities for recognizing the family settlement to give effect to the same in accordance with the provisions of sections 111 and 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. In support of his contention, the counsel referred to the decision reported as Chander Shekhar v. Des Raj, (1989) 96 P. L. R. 293.
7. On a careful perusal of Chander Shekhar’s case (supra) I find that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case cited, it was found by the Court that one of the co-owners who was entitled to l/4th share of the property, was not given any share or any specific share of the land under the document in question. Accordingly the Court came to the conclusion that since no share was given to one of the co-owners, such a document could not be acted upon as a family arrangement nor it could be treated as partition.
8. A family partition and nature of possession of the parties can be proved by oral as well as documentary evidence. In the present case both the Courts on the basis of evidence led came to the conclusion that the parties had partitioned their holdings long back. There is no denying the fact that many a time, co-sharers without division of land, occupy separate portions of agricultural land for the purpose of cultivation ; but whenever it is proved that partition in fact did take place and was given effect to and accepted by the parties for some time, then that partition is normally to be given effect to. The fact that each one of the party is in possession of the land failing to his share and is enjoying its fruit, has not been contested by the appellants. Main emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellants has been that the alleged family partition has not been reflected in the revenue record and even otherwise, the proper forum to get the same reflected is the revenue Court. I do not find any substance in this plea also. The plaintiff sought declaration from the Court precisely for the reason that his claim was not being accepted by the defendants and such a relief could be granted by a Civil Court alone. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages within its ambit all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred No provision, of law or any judicial pronouncement has been cited by the counsel holding view that matter in dispute is beyond the purview of Civil Court. Perhaps for this reason no such plea was taken by the defendants in the written statement.
9. Consequently, finding no merit in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I dismiss the appeal. No costs.