Judgment P.S. Rana, Judge. 1. Present regular second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by learned District Judge Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2010 titled Satya Devi vs. Hari Chand. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Hari Chand plaintiff filed suit for possession in respect of the immovable land comprised in Khata No. 83 min, Khatauni No. 89 Khasra No. 283/1 measuring 0-09-23 hectares and Khasra No. 754/1 measuring 0-01-90 hectares situated in Tikka Samoh Tappa Bani Tehsil Barsar District Hamirpur (H.P.) It is pleaded that previously plaintiff and defendant were co-shares of suit land and plaintiff applied for partition of land before A.C. 1st Grade Barsar and after hearing both parties learned A.C. 1st Grade Barsar ordered for partition of suit land. It is pleaded that land was partitioned on dated 9.5.2005 and plaintiff was allotted Khasra No. 283/1 measuring 0-09-23 hectares and Khasra No. 754/1 measuring 0-01-90 hectares. It is pleaded that after partition of land plaintiff applied for warrant of possession and thereafter warrant of possession was issued. It is further pleaded that after delivery of possession of partitioned land to the plaintiff on dated 23.5.2007 defendant again occupied the land of plaintiff in the third week of June 2007 forcibly and thereafter plaintiff requested the defendant to hand over the peaceful possession of suit land but defendant has refused. Prayer for decree of suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct and further pleaded that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that no warrant of possession was delivered at the spot and suit land is joint between the parties. It is pleaded that defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC. It is pleaded that rapat No. 438 was drawn by revenue authorities in connivance with the plaintiff. It is pleaded that defendant was not dispossessed from Khasra No. 238 and 754 and plaintiff was not in possession of suit land. It is denied that defendant had occupied the suit land in third week of June 2007. It is pleaded that rapat No. 438 was drawn by revenue authorities in connivance with the plaintiff. It is pleaded that defendant was not dispossessed from Khasra No. 238 and 754 and plaintiff was not in possession of suit land. It is denied that defendant had occupied the suit land in third week of June 2007. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Plaintiffs also filed replication and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in plaint. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 3.12.2007:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not legally maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct? …..OPD 4. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonjoinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties? ……OPD 5. Whether no warrant of possession has been delivered and suit land is in defendant’s possession? ……OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? ……OPD 7. Relief. 5. Following oral witnesses examined:- Sr.No. Name of witness PW1 Vinay Kumar PW2 Hari Chand PW3 Prakash Chand PW4 Madan Lal PW5 Jai Chand PW6 Prakash Chand PW7 Jai Chand PW8 Seeta Devi PW9 Hari Ram DW1 Satya Devi DW2 Tirath Ram DW3 Vijay Kumar 6. Following documentary evidence produced:- Exhibit Description Ext.P1 Copy of Jamabandi Ext.PW2/A Rapat Ext.PW3/A Application for possession of land on basis of partition proceedings. Ext.PW4/A Copy of mutation on basis of partition proceedings Ext.PW5/A Warrant of possession on basis of partition proceedings. Ext.PW6/A Application for demarcation. Ext.PW6/B Demarcation report Ext.PW6/C & Ext.PW6/D Statements of parties during demarcation proceedings. 7. Learned trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of plaintiff and decided issues Nos. 2 to 6 against the defendant. Learned trial Court passed the decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to hand over possession of suit land to the plaintiff. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court appellant Smt. Satya Devi filed Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2010 titled Satya Devi vs. Hari Chand before learned District Judge Hamirpur. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court appellant Smt. Satya Devi filed Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2010 titled Satya Devi vs. Hari Chand before learned District Judge Hamirpur. Learned first Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by appellant Satya Devi. 9. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court Satya devi filed RSA No. 162 of 2013. On dated 31.7.2014 Hon’ble High Court admitted the appeal and framed following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether both learned Courts below erred in appreciating the provisions of law applicable, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them in its right perspective thereby vitiating the impugned judgment and decree? 2. Whether both learned Courts below misread and mis-appreciated the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act and Rules with respect to delivery of property after partition, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? 3. Whether learned Courts below misread and misappreciated the statements of PW1 to PW9 and Ext.PW1/A to Ext.PW6/D more particularly documents Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW4/A thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees? Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of parties and also perused the entire record carefully. 10. Oral evidence adduced by the parties:- 10.1 PW1 Hari Chand has filed affidavit Ext.PW1/A in his examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that defendant had forcibly occupied the suit land without any title. There is further recital in affidavit that partition application was filed and thereafter A.C. 1st Grade had delivered the possession to the plaintiff in partition proceedings. There is further recital in affidavit that defendant forcibly took possession of suit land in the month of June. There is further recital in affidavit that possession be delivered to the plaintiff. In cross examination PW1 stated that possession was given on dated 23.5.2007. PW1 stated that spot was visited by Patwari Halqua, Tehsildar and Chowkidar. PW1 has denied suggestion that Satya Devi is in possession of suit land since her ancestors. 10.2 PW2 Vinay Kumar Patwari has stated that he is Patwari since 1½-2 years. He has brought the original record of rapat No. 438 Ext.PW2/A which is correct as per original record. He has stated that he was present at the spot when possession was delivered to plaintiff. 10.2 PW2 Vinay Kumar Patwari has stated that he is Patwari since 1½-2 years. He has brought the original record of rapat No. 438 Ext.PW2/A which is correct as per original record. He has stated that he was present at the spot when possession was delivered to plaintiff. 10.3 PW3 Parkash Chand Reader to Tehsildar Barsar has stated that he has brought the original file. He has stated that he had seen application titled Hari Chand vs. Satya Devi relating to delivery of possession. He has stated that copy Ext.PW3/A is correct as per original record. He has stated that he is Reader to Tehsildar since 2004 and further stated that partition appeal was filed and after dismissal of partition appeal possession was delivered to plaintiff. 10.4 PW4 Madan Lal Assistant Kanungo has stated that he is posted as Assistant Kanungo in the office of Tehsildar. He has stated that he has brought the original record of mutation No. 104. He has stated that copy Ext.PW4/A is correct as per original record. He has denied suggestion that he has deposed falsely in Court. 10.5 PW5 Jai Chand Tehsildar has stated that he is posted as Tehsildar Barsar since 16.3.2006 and application for possession Ext.PW3/A was produced before him. He has stated that he had issued order of delivery of possession Ext.PW5/A. He has stated that mutation Ext.PW4/A was attested by him. He has stated that possession of four khasra numbers was given i.e. 283/1, 735/1, 754/1 and 756/2. He has stated that he had verified delivery of possession of four khasra numbers at the time of attestation of mutation. He has denied suggestion that he has attested the mutation in collusion with the plaintiff. 10.6 PW6 Parkash Chand Reader to Tehsildar Barsar has stated that he has brought the summoned record. He has stated that he had seen application for demarcation Ext.PW6/A. He has stated that demarcation report is Ext.PW6/B and statements are Ext.PW6/C and Ext.PW6/D. 10.7 PW7 Jai Chand has stated that he is retired as Tehsildar on dated 31.7.2008 and further stated that he perused original file. He has stated that application for demarcation was received by him and he submitted the demarcation report Ext.PW6/B. He has stated that he also recorded statements Ext.PW6/C and Ext.PW6/D. He has stated that he has personally conducted the demarcation on dated 8.6.2008. He has stated that application for demarcation was received by him and he submitted the demarcation report Ext.PW6/B. He has stated that he also recorded statements Ext.PW6/C and Ext.PW6/D. He has stated that he has personally conducted the demarcation on dated 8.6.2008. He has stated that he located three points prior to demarcation. He has stated that tatima (Field book) was already prepared as per partition papers. He has denied suggestion that he did not demarcate the land as per instructions of Financial Commissioner. 10.8 PW8 Seeta Devi has stated that she was present when demarcation was conducted. She has stated that her statement was also recorded in demarcation proceedings. She has stated that her statement is Ext.PW6/D. She has stated that before partition Smt. Satya Devi was in possession of suit property and Smt. Satya had cultivated the wheat crop. She has denied suggestion that she was not present at the time of demarcation. She has stated that even after partition Smt. Satya Devi is in cultivating possession of suit land. 10.9 PW9 Hari Ram has tendered affidavit in his examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has seen the suit property. There is recital in affidavit that suit land was joint inter se the plaintiff and defendant. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter partition proceedings took place. There is recital in affidavit that warrant of possession was issued in partition proceedings. There is recital in affidavit that defendant forcibly possessed the suit property and plaintiff requested the defendant to deliver the possession but defendant refused to deliver the possession. There is further recital in affidavit that demarcation was conducted on dated 8.6.2008 by Tehsildar in presence of deponent. PW9 has stated that before partition defendant was in possession of suit land and defendant had cultivated the wheat crop over the suit property. He has denied suggestion that no possession of suit property was delivered to plaintiff by revenue department. 10.10 DW1 Satya Devi has filed her affidavit in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that no possession of suit land was delivered to plaintiff. There is further recital in affidavit that defendant is in settled possession of suit land since her ancestors. There is also recital in affidavit that deponent was not dispossessed from suit land. There is recital in affidavit that suit land is still joint inter se the parties. There is further recital in affidavit that defendant is in settled possession of suit land since her ancestors. There is also recital in affidavit that deponent was not dispossessed from suit land. There is recital in affidavit that suit land is still joint inter se the parties. There is further recital in affidavit that no possession was delivered on dated 23.5.2007. There is recital in affidavit that present suit filed by the plaintiff just to harass the deponent. Defendant has admitted in cross examination that earlier the suit land was joint inter se the parties and thereafter plaintiff Hari Chand filed partition proceedings before the revenue officer. She has denied suggestion that partition was effected by revenue officials. She has denied suggestion that Khasra Nos. 283/1 and 754/1 were allotted to the plaintiff in partition proceedings. She has denied suggestion that appeal was filed qua partition proceedings. She has denied suggestion that partition appeal was dismissed by the Collector. She has denied suggestion that possession was delivered to the plaintiff in partition proceedings. She has denied suggestion that she forcibly took possession of suit property. 10.11 DW2 Tirath Ram has filed affidavit in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is familiar with parties. There is recital in affidavit that Satya Devi is in possession of suit property since her ancestors. There is further recital in affidavit that no warrant of possession was executed on dated 23.5.2007. There is further recital in affidavit that defendant Satya Devi had inherited the suit property from her husband. There is also recital in affidavit that defendant did not possess the suit land forcibly in third week of June 2007. There is also recital in affidavit that false suit was filed by plaintiff. DW2 has stated in cross examination that he does not know whether defendant Satya Devi had filed appeal before Collector qua partition proceedings. He has stated that he does not know that appeal filed by Satya Devi was dismissed by Collector. He has denied suggestion that defendant had forcibly occupied the suit property without any title. 10.12 DW3 Vijay Kumar has tendered affidavit in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that parties are known to deponent. There is further recital in affidavit that Satya Devi is in possession of suit property since the time of her ancestors. He has denied suggestion that defendant had forcibly occupied the suit property without any title. 10.12 DW3 Vijay Kumar has tendered affidavit in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that parties are known to deponent. There is further recital in affidavit that Satya Devi is in possession of suit property since the time of her ancestors. There is recital in affidavit that no possession was delivered on dated 23.5.2007 in partition proceedings. There is recital in affidavit that plaintiff filed the present suit just to harass the defendant. In cross examination DW3 has denied suggestion that Hari Chand plaintiff is owner of suit property. DW3 has admitted that suit property was joint inter se the parties. DW3 has stated that demarcation did not take place in his presence. DW3 has denied suggestion that Satya Devi had forcibly occupied the suit land. DW3 has admitted that plaintiff had filed criminal complaint in police and police had visited spot. DW3 has admitted that there is civil litigation between him and plaintiff relating to path and flow of water. Findings on Point No. 1 of Substantial question of law 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the provisions of law applicable in present case and further submission of learned Advocate that learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court have not properly appreciated pleadings of parties and oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by parties is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that suit land was joint inter se the parties. It is also proved on record that thereafter partition proceedings were filed by Hari Chand plaintiff before A.C. 1st Grade Barsar. It is also proved on record that thereafter final partition was effected inter se the parties by A.C. 1st Grade Barsar. It is also proved on record that thereafter appeal was filed before the Collector Sub Division Barsar and same was dismissed on dated 28.9.2006. As per Chapter IX and Section 123 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1953 a joint co-owner can file an application for partition relating to immovable land. As per Section 133 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1953 instrument of partition is prepared. As per Chapter IX and Section 123 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1953 a joint co-owner can file an application for partition relating to immovable land. As per Section 133 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1953 instrument of partition is prepared. It was held in case reported in 1994 (1) S.L.J. 433 (Punjab and Haryana) titled Darbara Singh and another vs. Gurdial Singh and another that after preparation of instrument of partition joint status of coowner is extinguished. It is proved on record that suit land was allotted to plaintiff in partition proceedings. It is also proved on record that partition proceedings have attained the stage of finality. It is well settled law that after completion of partition proceedings and after preparation of instrument of partition allottee becomes exclusive owner of allotted land. It is proved on record that Khasra Nos. 283/1 and 754/1 were allotted to plaintiff in partition proceedings. It is held that title of appellant in suit property was extinguished after the completion of partition proceedings and after preparation of instrument of partition. It is further held that plaintiff acquired title in suit property after completion of partition proceedings and after preparation of instrument of partition. It is well settled law that as per Section 65 of Limitation Act 1963 suit for possession of immovable property on the basis of title could be filed within twelve years when possession of defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In present case defendant did not plead right of adverse possession over the suit property. It is well settled law that there is no period of limitation for possession when suit is filed on the basis of title unless the right of plaintiff is defeated by way of right of adverse possession. (See 1985 SLJ 94 titled Mohinder Singh (died) through his LRs. and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another). In present case plaintiff has sought the relief of possession on the basis of title and it is held that plaintiff is legally entitled for possession of suit land on the basis of title. It is held that after completion of partition proceedings and after preparation of instrument of partition title of appellant is extinguished automatically from suit property. Point No.1 of substantial question of law is decided against appellant. Findings upon point No. 2 of substantial question of law 12. It is held that after completion of partition proceedings and after preparation of instrument of partition title of appellant is extinguished automatically from suit property. Point No.1 of substantial question of law is decided against appellant. Findings upon point No. 2 of substantial question of law 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that both learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court have misread and misappreciated the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act and Rules with respect to delivery of possession of property after partition is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that as per rapat No. 438 placed on record as Ext.PW2/A possession of Khasra No. 735/1 was delivered and possession of Khasra No. 283/1 and 754/1 was not delivered. It is held that as per Section 134 of H.P. Land Revenue Act a person can apply for delivery of possession within three years from the date of preparation of instrument of partition. It is held that if possession is not delivered within three years by revenue Court qua partition land then aggrieved person can file a suit for possession on the basis of title before Civil Court. It is held that learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court have rightly granted decree of possession in favour of plaintiff on the basis of title. Point No. 2 of substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. Findings upon Point No. 3 of substantial question of law 13. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court have misread and misappreciated the statements of PW1 to PW9 and have also not properly appreciated documents Ext.PW1/A to Ext.PW6/D is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of PW1 to PW9. It is proved on record that partition application was filed before A.C.1st Grade Barsar by plaintiff and it is also proved on record that thereafter partition proceedings were completed. It is also proved on record that thereafter appeal was filed relating to partition proceedings before the Collector and same was dismissed and thereafter instrument of partition was prepared. It is proved on record that partition application was filed before A.C.1st Grade Barsar by plaintiff and it is also proved on record that thereafter partition proceedings were completed. It is also proved on record that thereafter appeal was filed relating to partition proceedings before the Collector and same was dismissed and thereafter instrument of partition was prepared. It is held that after preparation of instrument of partition in partition proceedings status of joint ownership extinguishes and allottee becomes exclusive owner of immovable property allotted in partition proceedings. It is proved on record that suit land was allotted to plaintiff in partition proceedings and defendant did not adduce any positive cogent and reliable evidence in order to prove that suit land was allotted to her in partition proceedings. On contrary it is proved on record that suit land was allotted to plaintiff in partition proceedings which has attained the stage of finality. It is held that title was accrued in favour of plaintiff qua suit land after partition proceedings and it is further held that plaintiff is entitled for relief of possession on the basis of title. Appellant did not plead right of adverse possession over the suit property. It is held that plaintiff is legally entitled for relief of possession on the basis of title. Title of plaintiff over suit land remained unrebutted on record. It is held that after completion of partition proceedings and after preparation of instrument of partition by revenue officer possession of defendant/appellant over suit land is illegal and plaintiff is legally entitled for relief of possession from Civil Court on the basis of title over suit property. It is held that status of appellant over suit property as co-owner is extinguished after completion of partition proceedings and after preparation of instrument of partition over suit property. 14. In view of above stated facts appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court are affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Files of learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court along with certified copy of this judgment and decree sheet be sent back forthwith. The Registrar (Judicial) will prepare the decree sheet as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Appeal stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.