JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2011 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2007. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that appellant-plaintiff and the predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondents Sh. Saunu (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs' for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. According to the facts narrated in the plaint, the land comprised in khewat No. 48, Khatauni Nos. 64, 65, 66 and 67 bearing khasra Nos. 98, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 49, 51, 106, 107, 117, 100, 105, 108, 112, 114 and 50 kitas 18 measuring 30-12-11 bighas situated in village Dolgi, Illaqua Balh (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land-A') had been recorded in the ownership of the parties to the suit but in possession of the plaintiffs and the land comprised-in Khewat No. 57, khatauni Nos. 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, bearing Khasra Nos. 972, 837, 843, 957, 959, 966, 967, 968, 971, 974, 989, 836, 837/1, 842, 956, 970, 973, 976, 977, 978, 988, 990, 991, 835, 838, 842/1, 954, 979, 980, 958, 981, 987, 992, 841, 974, 975, 982 and 983 kitas 38 measuring 29-15-15 bighas situated in village Balt, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land-B') had been recorded in the joint possession of the parties to suit as occupancy tenants. It is further stated that one Kahnu had three sons, namely Bardu, Bhola and Chitru. Bardu was predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs whereas Bhola was predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 1 and Chitru was predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Ramu, Saain and Sohanu (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' for convenience sake). Bardu, Bhola and Chitru were possessing land in villages Dolgi and Balt. Bardu, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs started living in village Dolgi. Bhola and Chitru started residing in village Balt. They have partitioned their property situated in villages Dolgi and Balt by family partition more than 60 years back. They have constructed their houses and started cultivating their landed property separately. Bardu relinquished his right, title and interest in the suit land-B in favour of Bhola and Chitru. Bhola and Chitru had relinquished their right, title and interest in the suit land-A in favour of Bardu. They have constructed their houses and started cultivating their landed property separately. Bardu relinquished his right, title and interest in the suit land-B in favour of Bhola and Chitru. Bhola and Chitru had relinquished their right, title and interest in the suit land-A in favour of Bardu. The family partition has taken place on 19.5.1957 vide Ex. P-1. The defendants have also got the revenue entries corrected in their favour qua the suit land-B but their names in the suit land-A were still in the revenue record, which entries according to the plaintiffs are incorrect and illegal. They have also pleaded their possession over the suit land-A as open, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile to the knowledge of the defendants for the last 60 years. They have never permitted the defendants to use and enjoy the fruits of the suit land-A. The defendants taking advantage of the wrong revenue entries in their favour were trying to dispossess them from the suit land-A. In the alternative, it was also prayed by the plaintiff that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendants were having interest in the suit land-A in that eventuality, they be declared owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit land-B. It is in these circumstances that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. 2. Suit was contested by the defendants. The description of the suit land has not been denied by them. However, it is denied that the suit land-A was in possession of the plaintiffs. The description of suit land-B has also not been disputed by the defendants. It has been denied that the suit land-B has been shown in joint possession of the parties as occupancy tenants. It is stated that defendant No. 1 is owner in possession of the suit land-B to the extent of 1/3rd share whereas the other parties are joint tenants. It is also stated that the suit land-B though was in their possession but they were in possession as co-sharers/co-tenants. It is not denied that Bardu, Bhola and Chitru were sons of Kahnu and Bardu was predecessor-in-interest of Kahnu. It is denied that Bardu started living in village Dolgi and Bhola and Chitru were residing in village Balt. The partition has been denied. According to them, there had been no partition in between the parties or their predecessor-in-interest. It is not denied that Bardu, Bhola and Chitru were sons of Kahnu and Bardu was predecessor-in-interest of Kahnu. It is denied that Bardu started living in village Dolgi and Bhola and Chitru were residing in village Balt. The partition has been denied. According to them, there had been no partition in between the parties or their predecessor-in-interest. According to them, the entire land is joint in both the Muhals. It is denied that Bardu had relinquished his right, title and interest in the suit land-B in favour of Bhola and Chitru and Bhola and Chitru had relinquished their right, title and interest in favour of Bardu in the suit land-A. It is denied that the fact of partition was ever admitted by them. The plea with regard to adverse possession was also denied. It was admitted that the plaintiffs were having 1/3rd share in the suit land-B. 3. Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the suit on 31.7.1999. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the first appellate Court (Fast Track Court), Mandi allowed the same on 6.11.2004. He also framed issue No. 4-A and remanded the case to the trial Court. Thus, issues were firstly framed on 12.3.1996 by the trial Court and thereafter by the first appellate Court on 6.11.2004. The trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, namely, Kanhu and Hirda preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. The legal representatives of Saunu, who was the original plaintiff, were added as proforma respondents. Learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 31.3.2011. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether document Ex. P-1, i.e. Iqraarnama Khangi Takseem (Family Partition Deed), requires registration specially when it does not create new right, rather merely recites what has already taken place and it is not a declaration of will, but a mere statement of fact? 2. Whether both the Courts below have properly appreciated the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and DW-1, whose statements clearly establish the case of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether both the Courts below have misconstrued and misread the document Ex. 2. Whether both the Courts below have properly appreciated the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and DW-1, whose statements clearly establish the case of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether both the Courts below have misconstrued and misread the document Ex. P-1 i.e. Iqraarnama Khangi Takseem (Family Partition Deed), to the effect that the said document is not signed by one of the co-sharers, namely, Sohaunu son of Chitru, specially when from the bare perusal of document Ex. P-1, it is clear that the said document has been signed by Sohaunu son of Chitru, who is one of the co-sharers? 4. Whether both the Courts below are right in giving the findings that the appellant-plaintiffs could not prove their adverse possession in the suit land specially when the document and statements of PW-1 to PW-3, clearly establish the fact that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land for the last more than 60 years and their possession is open, hostile, peaceful and to the complete exclusion of the defendants? 4. Mr. V.D. Khidtta has strenuously argued that the first appellate Court has misread and misappreciated the evidence, more particularly, Ex. P-1. He also argued that the plaintiffs have proved their adverse possession for the last 60 years. He finally contended that Ex. P-1 was not required to be registered as has been held by the first appellate Court. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 7. Plaintiff No. 2 Sh. Kanku has appeared as PW-1. According to him, their ancestors had partitioned their land. Suit land-B had fallen in the share of Bhola and Chitru and suit land-A had fallen in the share of Bardu. Partition was given effect to about 60-65 years back and they started living separately and they are also cultivating the land separately. 8. PW-2 Toda Ram has stated that the parties are known to him. Bardu, Bhola and Chitru were brothers and they were having land in villages Balt and Dolgi. They had partitioned their lands by way of family partition and document was prepared. According to him, Bardu had relinquished his share in the land situated in village Balt. Bardu and Chitru had relinquished their shares in village Dolgi. Document of partition was prepared at village Balt. They had partitioned their lands by way of family partition and document was prepared. According to him, Bardu had relinquished his share in the land situated in village Balt. Bardu and Chitru had relinquished their shares in village Dolgi. Document of partition was prepared at village Balt. He was witness to the same. He has identified his signatures on the document Ex. P-1. According to him, Bardu, Bhola and Chitru had also signed the document Ex. P-1. 9. PW-3 Durgu Ram has deposed that Bardu, Bhola and Chitru were brothers. They owned land in villages Dolgi and Balt. He has also reiterated that Bardu had given up his share in the land in village Balt in favour of Chitru and Bhola and Chitru had given up their share in the land in village Dolgi in favour of Bardu. According to him, the partition has taken place 40 years. He has also testified that Bardu and after his death his sons started cultivating the land in village Dolgi and had been cultivating the same. 10. DW-1 Kalia Ram has testified that his land was situated in Muhal Balt, which is jointly owned by them and no partition has taken place. 11. Defendant No. 4 was examined as DW-2. He has deposed that land situated in Muhal Dolgi and village Balt was jointly owned and possessed by the parties and they used to cultivate the same jointly. No partition has taken place. Plaintiff Saunu has died and plaintiff's son, who is one of the parties in the suit, had purchased their share in the land situated in Muhal Dolgi (suit land-A) for consideration of Rs. 29,000. They have sold their land as per registered sale deeds Ex. DX and DY. 12. Sh. Kanku Ram has appeared as PW-1 after the remand by the first appellate Court. According to him, they have never permitted the defendants from enjoying the fruits, i.e. yield, grass, wood, grains etc. They were in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land-A since 1957. They never treated the defendants as owners of the suit land nor they ever permitted the defendants to possess the suit land. 13. Statements of PW-4 Nag Ram, PW-5 Bhagat Ram, PW-6 Parkash Chand and PW-7 Ramesh Chand were also recorded. They have supported the version of PW-1. They never treated the defendants as owners of the suit land nor they ever permitted the defendants to possess the suit land. 13. Statements of PW-4 Nag Ram, PW-5 Bhagat Ram, PW-6 Parkash Chand and PW-7 Ramesh Chand were also recorded. They have supported the version of PW-1. According to them, the suit land-A was in possession of the plaintiffs and they have never seen the defendants in possession of the suit land-A. 14. Defendants after the remand by the first appellate Court have examined DW-3 Parkash Chand, Registration Clerk. He has proved sale deed No. 784 dated 21.6.2009 Ex. DW-3/A, sale deed No. 125 dated 29.1.2000 Ex. DW-3/B, sale deed No. 103 dated 27.1.1999 Ex. DW-3/C, sale deed No. 49 dated 15.1.1999 Ex. DW-3/D, sale deed No. 1492 dated 28.12.1998 Ex. DW-3/E and sale deed No. 50 dated 12.1.1999 Ex. DW-3/F on record. 15. Plaintiffs have also placed on record copy of jamabandi for the years 1956-57 Ex. P-2, copy of Sajra Nasab Ex. P-3, copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92 of the suit land-A, copy of Missal Haquiat Ex. P-5 of the suit land-B, copy of jamabandi for the year 1988-89 of the suit land-B Ex. P-6 and copy of jamabandi for the year 1988-89 of the suit land-B Ex. P-7. Defendants have tendered in evidence copy of mutation Ex. DA, Ex. DB, Ex. DC, Ex. DD, Ex. DE, Ex. DF, Ex. DG and copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02 of the suit land-A Ex. DH. 16. PW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not born at the time of partition. Ex. P-1 dated 19.5.1957 was not scribed in his presence. Ex. P-1 was not in possession of Sohanu Ram. PW-2 in his cross-examination has testified that Chitru had also signed the document Ex. P-1 but he could not identify his signatures on Ex. P-1. He has feigned ignorance with regard to the area allotted to each of the co-sharer. PW-3 Durgu in his cross-examination has stated that consolidation proceedings were going in the said Muhal and their land has not been partitioned so far. He has denied that no partition has taken place in his presence. According to him, Dundu, Mia, Chitru, Bhola and Bardu were present. 17. Plaintiffs have not produced the scribe of document Ex. P-1. There is variance in the measurement of land given in Ex. He has denied that no partition has taken place in his presence. According to him, Dundu, Mia, Chitru, Bhola and Bardu were present. 17. Plaintiffs have not produced the scribe of document Ex. P-1. There is variance in the measurement of land given in Ex. P-1 and the suit land mentioned in the plaint. The land as per Ex. P-1 measures 34 bighas in village Balt. However, as per plaint, the exact measurement of the suit land in Muhal Dolgi is 30-12-11 bighas and in Muhal Balt is 29-15-14 bighas. One of the co-sharers Sohanu son of Sh. Chitru has not signed Ex. P-1 dated 19.5.1957. Case of the plaintiffs is that Bardu has given up his share in the suit land situated in village Balt. Similarly, Bhola and Chitru have given up their shares in village Dolgi. However, it has come in Ex. P-1 that Bardu was in cultivatory possession of 10 bighas of land in village Balt, i.e. suit land-B. Thus, the plea of the plaintiffs that the suit land was partitioned and the parties started living separately in villages Balt and Dolgi cannot be accepted. Moreover, if there had been partition of the suit land-A and suit land-B in between the plaintiffs and defendants or their predecessor-in-interest, the legal representative of Sauna, namely, Dhani Ram, who has been substituted on record as legal representative ought not to have purchased his own land, i.e. suit land-A from the defendants. DW-2 has categorically stated that during the pendency of the suit, Dhani Ram has purchased the suit land-A for a sum of Rs. 29,000, from defendant No. 1 Kaila for Rs. 29,000 vide registered sale deeds Ex. DX and Ex. DY. It is, thus, evident that defendants No. 2 to 4 have sold their shares from the suit land-A, i.e. measuring 2-11-1 bigha to Dhani Ram son of Saunu vide registered sale deed Ex. DX/DW-3/F on 15.1.1999. Defendant No. 1 has also sold his share in the suit land-A measuring 2-11-1 bigha to Dhani Ram son of Saunu for a sum of Rs. 29,000 which was also registered on 15.1.1999 vide sale deed Ex. DY/DW-3/D. It is also proved on record that Ex. P-1 was not acted upon since the copy of the same was never produced before the revenue authorities on the basis of which, revenue record was to be altered. 29,000 which was also registered on 15.1.1999 vide sale deed Ex. DY/DW-3/D. It is also proved on record that Ex. P-1 was not acted upon since the copy of the same was never produced before the revenue authorities on the basis of which, revenue record was to be altered. It has come in the statement of DW-3 that Ex. DW-3/A to Ex. DW-3/F were executed during the pendency of the suit. Dhani Ram has executed Ex. DW-3/A in favour of Beli Ram regarding the land situated in Dolgi for 'Rs. one lakh. Similarly, Ex. DW-3/B was executed by Dhani Ram in favour of Roop Singh regarding the land situated in Mauja Dolgi for Rs. 20,000. Ex. DW-3/C was executed by Dhani Ram in favour of Roop Singh for Rs. 13,000 regarding the land situated in Mauja Dolgi and Ex. PW-3/D was executed by Kalia son of Sh. Bhola in favour of Dhani Ram son of Sohanu regarding land situated in Mauj Dolgi for Rs. 29,000. Ex. DW-3/E was executed by Dhani Ram again in favour of Roop Singh regarding the land situated in Mauja Dolgi for Rs. 17,000 and Ex. DW-3/F was executed by Ramu, Sai, Sainu sons of Chhitru in favour of Dhani Ram regarding the land situated in village Dolgi for Rs. 29,000. 18. Plaintiffs have not led any evidence to prove their adverse possession. Their possession has to be hostile and there must exist right of exclusive ownership to the exclusion of true owner. The testimony of PW-1 that the defendants were prevented from cultivating the land cannot be believed since he was two years old in the 1956. Similarly, statements of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 to prove the adverse possession have rightly been discarded by the Courts below. Ex. P-1 has never been registered. It ought to have been registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Moreover, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the partition was given effect. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. Consequently, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.