G.C. Mittal, J. - (1.) Teja Singh and Dalip Singh two brothers were joint owners of 134 kanals, 14 marlas. When consolidation proceedings took place, Teja Singh was alive but Dalip Singh was dead and his share was represented by his two sons Sohail Singh and Baghel Singh. The khatas of the two lines were separated. At that time some dispute arose as to the extent of holdings of each line because Teja Singh pleaded that there was an earlier private partition which was recorded by way of memorandum in the resolution dated 11.2.1947 of a cooperative society of which both the co -sharers were the members. The consolidation authorities concluded that there was no partition of the joint entire khata by metes and bounds and, therefore, considered the entire land of the two branches to be joint and partitioned the same equally in the two lines and separated their khatas accordingly. In the meantime, Teja Singh also died. Kundan Singh and others, children of Teja Singh filed the present suit against the heirs of Dalip Singh pleading that there was a family partition prior to 1947 which was recorded in the resolution of the cooperative society dated 11.2.1947, and, therefore, whatever land was occupied by Teja Singh thereafter has to be considered as the ownership of the plaintiffs as his next heirs and the consolidation authorities were in error in not accepting the private partition. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that there was no private partition, and throughout in the jamabandi up to the date of the consolidation, both the lines were recorded as joint owners in the same khata but they were cultivating separate khasra numbers by way of family arrangement. While the trial court held that the resolution was a memorandum of partition and did not require registration, the lower appellate court came to the contrary conclusion that the resolution amounted to partition and since the property more than Rs. 100/ - was involved, it required registration. While the trial court had decreed the suit, the lower Appellate court dismissed the suit. This is plaintiffs' second appeal.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this second appeal. Even assuming the resolution dated 11.2.1947 to be a family arrangement and not a partition, what I find therefrom is that the parties did not affect partition of the joint holding by metes and bounds but they only agreed to cultivate separate khasra numbers, which in law does not amount to partition of the joint holding. This fact is reflected in the jamabandis Exhibits P. 4 and P. 5, which show that inspite of the aforesaid resolution, the khata continued to be joint in which Teja Singh and the sons of Dalip Singh were recorded as joint owners in equal shares but in the column of possession, some khasra numbers were shown in possession of Teja Singh and the remaining khasra numbers in the possession of the sons of Dalip Singh. This fortifies the fact that at that time of the resolution or prior thereto, there was no partition but only an arrangement to cultivate separate pieces of land. The aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by mutations exhibits P. 12 and P. 13 During the year 1954, Teja Singh exchanged some of the khasra numbers which were once held jointly by the two brothers with strangers and got new numbers vide aforesaid two mutations, the land which was got in exchange was recorded jointly in the name of Teja Singh and sons of Dalip Singh. Therefore, I conclude that there was no partition between the two brothers at any time. Accordingly, the controversy, whether the resolution dated 11.2.1947 requires registration or not, pales, into insignificance.
(3.) Regarding agricultural land, the partition can be made either by a registered document which is given effect to in the mutation and khatas are separated. When the parties agree to divide and even divide the property, the same has to be got implemented by applying to the revenue authorities for recognising the family partition and to give effect to the same. See in this behalf, Ss. 111 to 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. After the private partition is accepted by the revenue authorities, only thereafter khatas are separated and instead of showing them as joint owners, they are shown to be the owners in different khatas with different khasra numbers. Hence, viewing the case from any angle, I am of the considered view that there is no partition between the parties till the consolidation took place. Hence, the effort of the plaintiffs to get the land in lieu of what they got in exchange, treating the land got in exchange as their sole property, cannot be upheld. The consolidation authorities were perfectly justified in including the land got in ex -change as joint land of the parties.;