JANI Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case in brief are that Smt. Jani and others, petitioners, filed an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sirsa for partition of land measuring 129 Kanal 2 Marlas situated in village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order dated 24.3.1992 adjourned the partition case sine-die on the ground that the civil suit was pending before the Civil Court and the question of title was involved. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Collector, Sirsa who vide his order dated 30.4.1993 dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Hissar Division, who after hearing both the parties, has made a reference vide his order dated 5.9.1994 recommending that the orders of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and the Collector, Sirsa should be set aside and the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Sirsa be directed to continue the partition proceedings for separating the share of the petitioners.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners said that respondent Nos. 16 and 18 filed a suit against the respondent Nos. 10 to 15. Respondents Nos. 16 and 18 are the daughters of Sohan Lal, whereas respondents No. 10 to 15 are sons of Sohan Lal, who was a co-sharer and has since passed away. Thus, there is civil litigation among the heirs of one co-sharer Sohan Lal, but qua the petitioners there is no litigation or civil suit pending and there is no dispute against the petitioners whatsoever. Therefore, they have the right to get their share partitioned. He said that the learned Commissioner has rightly observed that the share of the respondents can be taken as one and further partition could be done on the basis of decision in the civil suit. There is no question of title vis-a-vis. the petitioners and hence partition proceedings should be continued for separating their share in the land to be partitioned.

(3.) I have studied the case file and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both the parties. Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 pertaining to the land to be partitioned shows that Smt. Jani and other petitioners are joint owners of 1/3rd share of the land to be partitioned. Moni Ram, Hira Lal, Bhawal Sons of Sardul were owners of 1/3rd of the share and Sohan Lal s/o Bagrawat was owner of the 1/3rd share of the land to be partitioned. The application for partition of land of their 1/3rd share was moved by the petitioners before the Assistant Collector, Sirsa. The partition case was adjourned sine-die by the Assistant Collector on the ground that mutation No. 1222 dated 23.5.90 had been challenged before the civil court and hence, question of title was involved. Rulings which have been cited before him, have also been cited in the judgment. This is true that if there is civil litigation pending between the parties, the question of title arises which has to be decided first. However, in this case civil litigation is not pending between the parties as the Commissioner has clarified in his order and had also been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Meera Devi, respondents No. 16 and 18 who are daughters of Sohan Lal, have filed a civil suit against Smt. Parmeshwari, widow of Shri Sohan Lal. Hanuman, Jagdish, Balwant Singh, Anirudh, Ram Gopal, Vijay Pal sons of Shri Sohan Lal and Smt. Shangri Devi w/o Vinod Kumar who are respondents No. 19, 10, 11, 13, 12, 14, 15 and 17. These are all members of the family of Sohan Lal, who own 1/3rd of the share in the joint khewat. The revision petitioners are not a party in this civil suit. No dispute has even been alleged against the petitioners in any manner. Thus, qua the revision petitioners, there is no civil suit pending and hence no question of title is involved vis-a-vis the revision petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to get their share of the land partitioned. Therefore, I agree with the Commissioner, Hissar Division, that since civil suit pertains only to the share of Sohan Lal, their share can be taken as one share and further partition could be done on the basis of decision of the civil court later. Since there is no dispute or civil suit pending vis-a-vis the petitioners, the case for partition of their share should continue. Accordingly, I accept the recommendation made by the Commissioner in his reference dated 5.9.1994. Hence, the revision petition is accepted, the orders dated 24.3.92 and 30.4.93 passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector respectively are set aside and the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Sirsa is directed to continue with the partition proceedings for separating the share of the petitioners. To be communicated.