JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidya, J.: The present plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and as a consequential relief of permanent injunction, praying for the following relief’s: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the facts stated above, a decree with costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of 1/3 share of land detailed in para No.l of this plaint and more precisely Khasra Nos. 470,485, 551, 553, 560 in mauza Fathe Pur, Hadbast No. 447 and Khasra Nos. 1261, 1266, 1329, 133?, 1396, 1410, 1415 as entered in Khewat No.5 KhatauniNo.8, JamaSandi for the year 1980-81 of Mauja Lunadha, Hadbast No.448, actually owned by defendant No.2 and cultivated by the plaintiffs as tenants the proprietary right of which were transferred in favour of defendant No.l who has lost the rights of ownership by the operation of H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act and Rules and by way of consequential relief a permanent injunction re-straining the defendants from interfering in the ownership of the plaintiffs in the suit land described above and further restraining her from alienating the land to any body else may kindly be passed or any other relief which in the circumstances of the case the learned Court deems it fit may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants." 2. Plaintiffs case as put up in the plaint hat been that they were recorded in the revenue record vide Jamabandi for the years 7.983-84 as co-shares in possession of the land described under para No. 1 of the plaint. According to them, predecessor-in interest of the parties separated before 1947 and mere was a disruption in joint Hindu family and the status of the individuals was that of individual owners on the basis of private partition having taken place prior to 1947. It was further pleaded that their separate possession as owners was -recorded showing HISEDAR KASHT of the respective parries in the Jamabandi for the year 1953-54 in which the plaintiffs were recorded in cultivating possession of Khewat No.6/1 Khatauni No. 7/1 and Khatauni No.l. Smt. Nardu and Smt. Gulabi defendant No.2 and predecessor in interest of proforma defendant were recorded in possession of Khewat No.6/1 Khatauni No.9 and 10. According to plaintiffs, Smt. Nardu and Gulabi Getting were getting land cultivated through Shri Lakhiya S/o Kanhu Caste Gujjar, as non-occupancy tenant in Khatauni No. 10. Plaintiffs further case has been that during the settlement operation in the year 1968 and 1969, defendant No.2 Smt Gulabi and Smt Nardu deceased got the land from Shri Lakhiya aforesaid tenant and also separate themselves and on partition inter-state, Smt Gulabi handed over the possession of the land to the plaintiffs and since then, the plaintiffs were cultivating the land, but the plaintiffs have been wrongly described as joint owners in possession of the said land. This mistake, according to plaintiffs, was obviously created during settlement operation due to the fact that the plaintiffs were cultivating their own land as owners and the land described above belonging to Smt. Gulabi as tenant and the entire land was under the cultivating possession of the plaintiffs. It has also been pleaded that on the basis of these wrong entries showing the land under joint cultivating were persisting in the revenue record, but the factual position on the spot was quite different and the plaintiffs were, as such, cultivating the land of Gulabi defendant No. 2 upto 24-06-1986 and were paying 1/4 share of the produce to Smt Gulabi of the land described above. It was also averred by the plaintiffs became owners of the land on 24-04-1986 when Smt. Gulabi alienated the land in favour of defendant No. I who is not a protected land owner as defined under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1974 and the plaintiffs had become full owners of the land described in the plaint and defendant No.l had lost, all rights, title and interests in the land under Section 104 of the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act As the defendant did not admit the claim of the plaintiffs, accuse the suit for declaration and injunction was filled. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit and they took various preliminary objections, i.e., that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiffs were estopped by their own acts and conduct from filing the present suit and that the suit v/as barred by limitation. On merit, the case of the plaintiffs, as laid, was not admitted. However, it was pleaded that one Padamu had three sons named Joni, Pohle and Dara. On merit, the case of the plaintiffs, as laid, was not admitted. However, it was pleaded that one Padamu had three sons named Joni, Pohle and Dara. Dara left behind widow Mst. Gulabi Devi, defendant No.2 and Pohlo left behind his widow Mst. Nardu. It was also pleaded that Joni had three sons, the plaintiffs, Paras Ram Kishan and Sunder Singh and thus, the status interalia was that of co-sharers and the land was joint and un- partitioned. It was also pleaded in the written_ statement that there had never been any partition as alleged by the plaintiffs. Mst. Gulabi defendant No.2 being widow was alleged to be in joint ownership and possession of the suit land with the plaintiffs. According to defendants, defendant No.2 gifted her share in favour of defendant No. 1 and no possession was over handed over to the plaintiffs as alleged by them in the plaint as tenant. The status was that of co-owner and co-sharers. The entries in the record of rights were alleged to be correct. Defendant No.2 as referred to above, had transferred her share in the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 through a valid gift deed dated 24.6.1986 and since then defendant No. 1 had stopped into the shoes of defendant No.2 and, *ius, the status of defendant No. 1 with the plaintiffs was that of co-sharer. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. Parties were put to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have been inducted as tenants by Smt. Gulabi as alleged if so its effect ? OPP. 2. Whether there had been private partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2? OPP. 3. Whether the gift deed is invalid as alleged ? OPP. 4. Whether the rights of the defendant No.2 over the suit land has got extinguished as alleged ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not within limitation ? OPD. 7. Whether the defendant No.2 had been co-sharer with the plaintiffs uptil the date of gift if so its effect ? OPD. 8. Relief. 5. Issues 1,4,6 and 7 were decided in the negative while issues 2,3 and 5 were decided in the affirmative. The suit of die plaintiffs was dismissed. 6. OPD. 7. Whether the defendant No.2 had been co-sharer with the plaintiffs uptil the date of gift if so its effect ? OPD. 8. Relief. 5. Issues 1,4,6 and 7 were decided in the negative while issues 2,3 and 5 were decided in the affirmative. The suit of die plaintiffs was dismissed. 6. Plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, assailed the same before the first hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. The trial Courts finding qua the gift being invalid, was affirmed as according to the first appellate court the possession of the land was with the plaintiffs and, therefore, Smt. Gulabi having not been in possession of the land, could not make gift of me same validly. The first appellate court affirmed the finding of private partition. 7. The plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court through the present appeal on various pleas. The defendant - respondents also preferred cross-objections alleging therein that the gift did executed by defendant No, 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 was valid one and the findings, in this behalf, were not legally tenable. Regarding private partition, the cross Objections preferred were that no private partition had taken place and the findings in this behalf were also against law and facts on record. 8. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record scrutinished. 9. Both the Courts below while dismissing the suit of the appellants made the following observations : (i) that defendant No.2 was the owner of the suit land whereas the possession of the suit land was with the plaintiffs not as a tenant; and (ii) the gift deed in favour of defendant No. 1 was declared to be void, possession having not been delivered. 10. Plaintiffs were claiming to be in occupation of the suit land as tenants under defendant No.2 Smt. Gulabi whose share was separated before 1947 and thereafter, plaintiffs were inducted as tenant. The latest entries in the record of rights do not at all reflect the aforesaid version of the plaintiffs. Ex.PB is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 wherein the parties have been recorded as co-shares of the suit land in joint cultivating possession. The share of Smt. Gulabi has been recorded to be l/3rd. The latest entries in the record of rights do not at all reflect the aforesaid version of the plaintiffs. Ex.PB is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 wherein the parties have been recorded as co-shares of the suit land in joint cultivating possession. The share of Smt. Gulabi has been recorded to be l/3rd. Legal presumption of truth is attached to this latest entry in the record of rights and it is to be rebuted by none else, but by the plaintiffs who claim to be in exclusive possession of the suit land which fell to the share of Gulabi defendant No.2 as tenants under her. In order to prove this aspect, plaintiffs first of all, have to prove on record the alleged private partition which, according to plaintiffs, took place prior to 1947 and thereafter, it has to be proved that after partition, when the share of defendant No.2 was separated, she inducted plaintiffs as tenants for the land allotted in her favour in the partition. 11. Needless to say, partition is the perpetual severance of the joint ownership and possession of the co-shares in a joint property. Partition could be effected through the intervention of the Court or otherwise privately by the parties. In order to prove private partition so far as the present case is concerned that the suit land fell to the share of Smt Gulabi defendant No.2, it has to be proved on record as to what was the joint property of the parties which was the subject matter of private partition and what was the property allotted to each of the co-sharer in that partition and that each co-sharer was in exclusive possession of the share allotted to him or her. 12. It may not be out of place to mention here that no evidence has been brought on record as to what was the joint property of the parties which was the subject matter of the private partition which took place prior to 1947. There is also no legally competent evidence as to what property was allotted in favour of each co-sharer. There is also no proper evidence examined in this behalf that each co-sharer remained in exclusive possession of the share allotted to him or her after the alleged private partition. 13. There is also no legally competent evidence as to what property was allotted in favour of each co-sharer. There is also no proper evidence examined in this behalf that each co-sharer remained in exclusive possession of the share allotted to him or her after the alleged private partition. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has very strongly contended that the statement of PW-I who happened to be one of the plaintiffs has proved the factum of private partition. PW-1 is Sunder, one of the plaintiffs. This witness stated that Gulabi is the widow of Dara and according to him, some private . partition had taken place amongst Dara and others and they were cultivating the share allotted to them separately. He further added that Pohlo died in the year 1947 and thereafter Nardu and Gulabi gave their shares for cultivation in favour of Lakhia S/o Vina who cultivated uptil 1962 and thereafter, the girdawari was recorded in the name of owners and then Gulabi and Nardu gave the land in favour of the plaintiffs for cultivation purposes by stating that plaintiffs would be paying the rent to them. 14. It is being argued that the alleged private partition which took place prior to 1947 stood established from the aforesaid statement. I simply disagree With this submission, especially when he necessary facts to be proved with respect to the private partition, as detailed above, have not at all been brought on record through a legally competent evidence by the plaintiffs. The Courts below fell into an error to come to the conclusion that private partition between the parties had been proved. It is correct that m some of the entries in the record of rights different co-sharers have been recorded to be in occupation of separate parcels of land as co- shares, but that alone will not prove the factum of private partition, especially when the latest entries in the record of rights did hot, even remotely, reflect to said factum of private partition. 15. The land, as such, is joint of the parties as has been reflected from the latest record of rights. 15. The land, as such, is joint of the parties as has been reflected from the latest record of rights. In that event, where all the co-sharers are in joint possession of the joint property, one of the co-sharer, under the law, cannot claim tenancy under another co-sharer, inasmuch as all the co- sharers are the joint owners of the entire land and no land, as such, could come under the tenancy of one of the co-sharers who happened to be the joint owners of that land also. So far as this proposition is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants has got no difference at-all. 16. Moreover, n the present case, as per the pleas of the plaintiffs, they were inducted as tenants during the settlement of the year 1968-69, which facts, according to PW-1, was wrongly stated in the plaint, as according to him, the tenancy was created in the year 1962 after the previous tenant handed over the possession in favour of the landlady. This aspect of the matter also does not help the case of the plaintiffs, so far as the private partition or the tenancy rights Claimed by the plantiffs were concerned. 17. The two courts below have held the gift deed Ex.PA to be void for want of delivery of possession. In a case of joint property, when a share is transferred by a gift by one of the co-sharers where the property was jointly possessed by all the co-shares, it would be the symbolic possession which will have to be taken not of masseurs as actual possession of the land gifted; could not be handed over on account of the property being jointly owner and possessed by all the co-sharers. In this view of the matter, the name of defendant; No.l in the revenue record was substituted in place of the donar, defendant No.2, and to this effect, in the remarks column to Ex.PB copy of Jamabandi for the year 1983-84,2 note-has been given. 18. Otherwise also this aspect of the matter was dealer with in another litigation which took place between the parties. In that litigation which has come up before this Court in Appeal No.95 of 1992, the validity of gift on the same ground was assailed. 18. Otherwise also this aspect of the matter was dealer with in another litigation which took place between the parties. In that litigation which has come up before this Court in Appeal No.95 of 1992, the validity of gift on the same ground was assailed. In that case, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the gift in favour of defendant No.l by defendant No.2 was valid one as in a joint property,, it was the symbolic possession which was to be delivered and which had been delivered in the said case. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited some law that in a case of present nature, even the delivery of possession was not essential in gift matters. Anyway, the fact remains that the symbolic possession had been delivered in favour of the donar by the donar, the property being joint. 20. No other point has been stressed. 21. In view of the fore-going reasons, the present appeal is dismissed, while the Cross Objections are accepted and as a consequence thereof, it is held that the gift deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.l was valid one and the findings of the Courts below that private partition has taken place, are set aside and the property is held to be in the joint ownership and possession of the parties as per their shares recorded in the latest entries in the record of rights. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.