CHAMAN LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, being an applicant in the partition proceedings, having purchased the share from Jasso, a co-sharer, is aggrieved of the order of the Financial Commissioner, whereby the matter has been remitted back.

(2.) Mr. Deepak Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total area of land is 20K-4M, whereas the share of the petitioner comes to 3K-7M vis-a-vis share of respondent No. 4, namely, Bua Singh 6K-17M, being in excess possession of 9K-12M and, therefore, the possession has to be disturbed. This is precisely what was done by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the Commissioner. However, the Financial Commissioner has not appreciated the aforementioned fact and, therefore, the order of remand is totally fallacious. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment and decree dated 4.4.1992 rendered in Civil Suit No. 236 of 30.9.1988, whereby the suit instituted at the instance of Bua Singh and others was decreed to the effect that they are owners in possession to the extent of ? .. " share in the land. However, the Lower Appellate Court has modified the aforementioned judgment and decree vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.1993 in the following manner:-

(3.) Mr. Arvind Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that no doubt private respondent No. 4 is also a co-sharer, but as a tenant of Jasso of the excess share and, therefore, his status would be of a tenant. The remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to seek the eviction in accordance with law, though he is in agreement that it would be a farcical exercise in remanding the matter back to the authorities for the purpose of assessing the possession of the parties. The factum of co-owner has been denied and, much less reflected in the judgment and decree indicated above.