' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.--- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Dadyal dated 16-9-2006, through which an appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed and judgment and decree of Civil Judge Dadyal dated 7-9-2005 was upheld.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Bostan son of Yousaf (the predecessor of the present appellants) filed a suit for declaration along with recovery of possession in the court of Civil Judge Dadyal. The said Bostan died and the present appellants were impleaded as plaintiffs being legal heirs of Bostan. It was stated in the suit that the land measuring 14 Kanals and 4 Marlas bearing Survey No,418 Khewat No,17/17 situated at village Bal Tehsil Dadyal District Mirpur is in the ownership and under possession of the present appellants/ plaintiffs since long through private partition. The respondent/defendant Muhammad Afsar filed an application for partition in the Court of Revenue Assistant. Ex parte proceedings were ordered against predecessor of the present appellants having fictitious proceedings and the partition proceedings were completed. Partition deed was issued and Mutation No,63 was attested on 12-2-2002. The respondent/defendant got possession process completed with connivance of revenue authorities. The whole partition proceedings were taken fictitiously, secretly, without hearing and against law and facts. These proceedings are null and void and liable to be . Cancelled. It was prayed to issue a declaratory decree against the respondent/defendant.
3. The respondent/real defendant submitted written statement, stating therein that the plaintiff has got no cause of action. The suit is hit by the principle of estoppel and res judicata. The suit has been filed beyond limitation and the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The suit is not maintainable under Order II, Rule 2 of C.P.C. The matter has been disposed of finally between the parties. It was prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. Issues were framed in accordance with the version of the parties and both the parties placed evidence on record. The learned Civil Judge Dadyal, after hearing the parties dismissed the suit being without proof. The present appellants preferred an appeal before Additional District Judge Dadyal which was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellants have filed the instant second appeal before this court.
5. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties who only repeated their version in brief. No need is required to produce the arguments in black in white.
6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record minutely and with utmost care. The record reveals that firstly the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the basis of jurisdiction. Later on, it was held by the appellate court that the court has got jurisdiction to hear the suit. It is an admitted fact that Bostan (the predecessor of the present appellants) and the respondent/defendant Muhammad Afsar along with others are co-sharers in the khewat of the disputed land. The respondent/defendant filed an application for partition before the Revenue Assistant and ex parte proceedings were ordered against the respondent in the partition proceedings. Partition deed Exh.D.N. Was issued and ultimately a warrant of possession was issued in the name of respondent/ defendant Muhammad Afsar to the extent of the land measuring 2 Kanals and 1 Marla. The said Muhammad Afsar was declared owner in possession of the said land. It is a settled principle of law that private partition or family settlement cannot be declared as final partition. Any of the co-sharers can approach the proper forum for partition of the jointly owned land in accordance with the provisions of law. The record reveals that the predecessor of the present, appellants Bostan refused service of the notice in the partition proceedings and thereafter ex parte proceedings were ordered against him. It was not proved that the service was conducted fictitiously. It was not stated by the said Bostan that what loss was occurred due to partition proceedings? If at all, any fluctuation/ decrease or increase in the quantity of the land is found, the only proper forum for redressal regarding the same is the revenue court designated for the purpose. Moreover, it has not been brought on record and even has not been proved that how much deficiency in the quantity of the land has found in the shares of the said Bostan? It is an admitted principle of law as well that the official partition is always preferred to the private partition. No co-sharer can be deprived of his right only due to this fact that the other co-sharer is in possession of any land.
7. It was not proved by the present appellants that when they got knowledge regarding the partition proceedings. The record also reveals that the said Bostan filed a suit for permanent injunction on 22-8-2000 after issuance of warrant of possession in favour of the respondent/ defendant Muhammad Afsar. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 9-3-2002. This fact indicates that the said Bostan had knowledge of the partition process and he remained absent from the partition proceedings intentionally and he filed the suit for permanent injunction when the warrant of possession was issued in the name of the respondent Muhammad Afsar. So, the suit under appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation. The present appellants have relied on private partition only. The private partition does not change the nature of the joint property and the same will remain joint until and unless it is partitioned by the revenue authorities according to the provisions of law. It is a settled principle of law as well that no suit for possession can be filed by a co-sharer having the version that he is already in possession of a part of the disputed land and such suit cannot be treated under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, the present appellants have failed to prove their version. The findings recorded by both the subordinate courts are based on sound and cogent reasons, which need no indulgence by this court. The instant appeal stands dismissed with no order as to the costs.