BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhagwan Singh appellant, Bhola Singh (father of Tara Singh, respondent No. 1 since dead and now represented by his legal representatives) and Hari Singh were the joint owners of the land measuring 53 kanals, 5 marlas. They jointly sold the land measuring 7 kanals, 16 marlas as mentioned in the plaint but later on said to be 6 kanals, 7 marlas only. Out of the remaining land, Bhagwan Singh sold 16 kanals, 4 marlas, the plaintiff 14 kanals, 12 marlas and Hari Singh 14 kanals, 13 marlas. After these sales,consolidation of holdings took place in the village and in lieu of the remaining land 4 kanals, 11 marlas was allotted to the parties. However, Hari Singh and Bhagwan Singh sold this land to respondents No. 2,3 and 4 (defendants No. 3,4 and 5) for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. The plaintiff consequently filed a suit claiming himself to be owner of 11/21 share on the ground that Bhagwan Singh having already sold more than his share was not entitled to any further share in the land in dispute. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties, found that according to the valuation assessed by the Consolidation Authorities, the plaintiff had sold 10 standard kanals, 15 marlas of land whereas Hari Singh and Bhagwan Singh together 15 standard kanals, 18 marlas. It was further held that share of each one of them in the total land being 9 kanals, 8 marlas. The plaintiff had sold more than his share and the suit was accordingly dismissed. On appeal, the learned senior Sub-Judge reversed this finding on the ground that the Consolidation Authorities had allotted land in equal shares to all the three owners and the civil court was not entitled to deny the plaintiff his share on the ground of the valuation assessed by the Consolidation Authorities. It was further observed that this could only be done by the Revenue Authorities at the time of the partition of the land. This approach of the learned Senior Sub-Judge was wholly erroneous. The land had been sold by the three co-owners and the question of its partition could not arise. To find out as to how much land was sold by each one of them, calculation in terms of the standard acres was the only proper method as was done by the trial court. The extent of co- ownership could not be determined in terms of Kanals and Marlas only, without reference to the quality of the land according to its standard value. The plaintiff having sold more than his share according to the standard value of the land,the trial court rightly held that he was not entitled to any share in the land allotted by the Consolidation Authorities in lieu of the land left over after the said sales.

(2.) For the reasons recorded above,the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and that of the trial court restored. No costs.