AVTAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner directing that in partition proceedings before the authorities, there had been issue of title and that therefore the matter would require to be examined afresh. The Financial Commissioner was accepting the contention of the respondent that the question of title will be decided by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade either himself by sitting as a Civil Court or declining to proceed with for taking a decision on partition and allow for a civil court adjudication. The challenge to the first order was subjected to an application for review before the Financial Commissioner, but it was dismissed. The dismissal of the review petition and the order passed originally come up for challenge come by means of this writ petition under the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner claimed himself to be a purchaser of a 1/3rd share from one Pritam Singh. Admittedly, the 5th respondent, who is the private contesting respondent was the brother of Pritam Singh and they had yet another brother, who had another 1/3rd share. The total extent of property which the three brothers was 59 kanals 10 marlas of land. The petitioner claimed as a purchaser through a sale deed executed by Pritam Singh on 21.04.1977 through a registered instrument in respect of 19 kanals 17 marlas which represented, according to the petitioner, a 1/3rd share.

(3.) After the purchase, non-alienating co-owner Amar Singh, 5th respondent herein filed a suit for an injunction before the Sub Judge, 2nd class, Tarn Taran in Civil Suit No.220 of 1980. His contention was that his possession must be protected and he was apprehending dispossession at the hands of Avtar Singh, the present petitioner. The petitioner, who was the defendant in that case, contended in suit that he had purchased 1/3rd share from Pritam Singh by a sale deed 21.04.1977 and he had also actually taken possession of the property. After framing a question of whether the plaintiff was in possession of the property and another issue whether he was entitled to injunction, the Court held as follows:-