MACHETTIRA MACHAIAH Vs. MACHETTIRA KARIAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners have questioned the impugned order of the third respondent allowing the petition of respondents herein for partition of certain properties by metes and bounds and for allotment of shares to the respondents. .according to the petitioners, 'a' schedule lands annexed to the writ petition are jama bane lands which have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the family of machettira and the petitioners as well as the respondents belong to the said family. Whereas the petitioners belong to one branch of the family, respondents 1 and 2 belong to the other. It is stated that there was a division of status between the two branches about hundred years ago and that all the immovable properties have been in separate possession and enjoyment of the said two branches. It is not necessary to refer to further details in regard to the property in question.

(2.) the first respondent preferredan application purported to be under regulation 127 of the coorg land revenue regulations 1899 ('regulation for short) seeking partition of 'a' schedule property and the third respondent after receiving objections of the petitioners, passed an order on 7.2. 1983 allowing the petition and ordering partition by metes and bounds. Hence the petitioners are aggrieved. The main plank of arguments of the petitioners is that the deputy commissioner who is respondent No. 3 herein is not invested with jurisdiction to pass an order of partition in respect of jama bane lands under the regulations.

(3.) it is also contended that thefinding of the third respondent that bane lands continued to be bane irrespective of cultivation or non-cultiva tion is incorrect. It is the case of the petitioners that the lands in question are assessed to land revenue and therefore they cease to be the absolute property of the .government and consequently the revenue authorities have no jurisdicton under the regulations to effect partition. It is further contended that the said property is the absolute property of jama holder and therefore the revenue authorities do not have any jurisdiction over the property in the matter of partition. The last contention is that the jurisdiction of the civil courts to effect partition continues to subsist and iat cannot be said that the regulations have ousted the jurisdiction of the civil courts.