KUNDAN LAL Vs. JAI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAI Lal made an application to the Assistant Collector for partition of the agricultural land. During the pendency of the partition application before the Assistant Collector, petitioner i. e. Kundan Lal, and Ratti Ram filed a suit, challenging the proceedings before the Assistant Col-lector. During the pendency of the suit, partition was sanctioned on 23. 7. 1979. This order was challenged in appeal In appeal, the order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 19th December, 1980, again passed an order of partition, which was also challenged in appeal. Appeal was allowed and the case was once again remanded to the Assistant Collector. The civil suit which was pending was withdrawn on 16. 11. 1981. On 193. 1984 the Assistant Collector allowed the application and passed an order partitioning the land. The petitioner i. e. Kundan Lal, challenged this order in the suit out of which the present revision petition has arisen. In the suit, declaration is being sought to the effect that the petitioner is owner in possession of the property in dispute, and the order of the Assistant Collector 1st grade, Sonepat, dated 19. 3. 1984, in partition proceedings in nonest, null and void, without jurisdiction and has no effect on the rights, title and interest of the petitioner. The petitioner also sought relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering in his peaceful possession over the house and the plot in dispute and from demolishing any part of the said house. Along with the suit, an application was filed for grant of ad-interim injunction, which was granted by the trial Court, but in appeal the same was vacated. The order of the appellate Court vacating the order of ad-interim injunction is being impugned in this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that die Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to pass an order of partition in respect of die property, on which residential house has been constructed upon. He also contended that die appellate Court ought not to have presumed that Gair Mumkan Makan on plot No. 122 is not meant for tethering cattle and storing fodder.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to restrain the respondents from executing the order of partition which was passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.