KIDAR SINGH Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Giving himself out as owner of undivided 1/3rd and Ran Singh and Karam Singh as owners of the remaining 2/3rd in the ratio of 1/3rd each, Kedar Singh filed an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, on August 28, 1968 for partition of the allegedly joint lands. Therein on July 5, 1968 Karam Singh filed objections Exhibit P.W. 4/1 raising the question of title to the effect : (1) that the property in dispute has been partitioned already between the parties mutually, (ii) of the objection being in exclusive possession of Killa No. 74, and (iii) of his having raised a residential house at considerable cost over the land comprised in Khasra No. 14 aforesaid. These objections were over-ruled by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, on August 7, 1970 vide order Exihibt D. 1, stating that since in Rabi 1986 entries of Khasra Girdawari, the parties were recorded to be in joint cultivation of the land in suit, there was no merit in the objections raised by Karam Singh in Exhibit P.W. 4/1 on July 5, 1969. Both the learned lower Appellate Court in its decision dated April 27, 1978 returned a finding that allegations obtaining in Exhibit P.W. 4/1 raised a question of title which could not be decided by the learned Collector. It was observed by this Court in Ram Gopal and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1965 67 PunLR 1102 that whenever a question of title is raised in partition proceedings before a Revenue Officer he is bound under section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act to refuse partition until such question is decided by the Civil court and that he could alternatively decide the question himself but if he completes the partition without the question of title being settled in one of the two ways provided in this section, the mere fact that the partition has been completed cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a subsequent suit regarding such a question of title. In the present case, order Exhibit D. 1, dated August 7, 1970 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, cannot be termed as decision of the question of title raised in Exhibit P.W. 4/1. Both the learned lower Courts below were thus justified in granting to the plaintiff respondent against the defendant-appellant a decree for declaration that the impugned order of the Revenue Officers partitioning the land in dispute were illegal and that the defendant-appellant shall not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the land in dispute on the basis of the said partition proceedings. There is thus no merit in the appeal which fails and is consequently dismissed with Costs.