KIRAN DEV SINGH Vs. DHANVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition assails orders dated 8.11.2004 and 22.11.2004 vide which AC-I, Dera Bassi, District Patiala approved table B (Naksha Aira) and table C (Naksha Iri) respectively in a portion which started in 1964 on the application of Arjun Singh, grandfather of the present petitioner. These orders were upheld by the Collector/SDM on 28.2.2005 and the Divisional Commissioner on 18.5.2005. The petitioner has said that his uncle Dhanvir Singh, one of the respondents, got a portion of his land through a collusive decree passed in his favour with the consent of the petitioner's power of attorney holder, Chet Kaur, his grandmother whose power of attorney he had cancelled long ago. His contention is that there is a question of title as he has filed a civil suit for setting aside the collusive decree but this plea was not treated properly by the AC-I, Collector and Commissioner, all of whom rejected this plea on a wrong ground that the question of title had already been decided upto the Supreme Court whereas the Supreme Court's decision was in relation to claim of tenants to ownership on the plea of occupancy tenancy, not this question of title between him and Dhanvir Singh with reference to the collusive decree.

(2.) WHILE this is true that the Supreme Court's decision related to the proprietory claim of the tenants, partition cannot be stopped on the aforesaid plea of collusive decree because it is not the stage for entertaining such a plea. The plea to stop partition on question of title is to be raised at the very beginning of partition proceedings so that it is seen whether the co- sharer seeking partition had no interest in the property to entitle him to seek partition. Here that is not the case at all. The case before the AC-I was in the stage of final partition whereby he confirmed Naksha Aira, being in conformity with the mode of partition.

(3.) THE question of title can be entertained at initial stage only. In the instant case the aforesaid collusive decree is dated 29.7.95 and the civil suit was filed against this by the petitioner on 12.6.02 after 7 years, whereas partition proceedings were started in 1964. Moreover, the land in question pertains only to a part (32 Bighas) of the share belonging to the original applicant for partition namely Arjun Singh who was one of the five sons of the original owners Mehma Singh. His share was 1/5th of 1018 bighas.