MOHAN LAL Vs. PURSHOTAM KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Defendant No.1 is aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby the suit instituted at the instance of the respondent-plaintiffs qua partition has been decreed, though vis-a-vis relief of declaration for setting-aside the revenue entries and Rapat Roznamcha No.313 dated 26.3.1984 has been dismissed being barred by law of limitation.

(2.) Mr.Puneet Bali, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Ranjit Saini, representing appellant-defendant No.1, in support of the grounds of appeal, has raised the following manifold arguments:-

(3.) He further submits that since respondent-plaintiff No.5 has purchased the share from the plaintiffs, his status is of a co-sharer in the joint khewat. In fact, once the land agreed to be sold is Banjar Jadid and is not an agricultural land, it is only the Civil Court which has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, for, had the petition before the Revenue Court by invoking the provisions of Section 111 of the Act including the entire land, been filed, the objection under Section 158 of 1887 Act would have immediately been taken, in essence, since the land is not agricultural, therefore, the Civil Court would have the jurisdiction and as well as for the remaining land, it is only the Revenue Court where the party can seek the partition and, therefore, the suit cannot be said to be hit by doctrine akin to "partial partition".