ISHWAR DASS Vs. MANSHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by one of the plaintiffs, namely, Ishwar Dass was dismissed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants with the allegations that the plaintiffs and the defendants were joint owners in possession of the suit land and the orders dated 2-6-1987, 21-2-1989 and 8-11-1989 passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, respectively, were illegal and without jurisdiction and the same would have no effect over the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs and that the defendants be restrained from getting possession of the suit land as per the order of partition and in the alternative the plaintiffs sought joint possession over the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the parties and that the defendants had filed an application for partition before the Assistant Collector and in the partition proceedings, the plaintiffs were proceeded against ex parte and an ex parte Order of partition was passed by the Assistant Collector, which was upheld in appeal by the Collector and the Commissioner. It was alleged that the Assistant Collector had passed the order of partition without following and complying with the mode of partition. In the written statement, the defendants took up the plea that the suit land had been partitioned at the spot as per the mode of partition and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, which was stated to be legal and valid and similar was the position in respect of the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner.

(3.) Alter hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the suit land had been partitioned between the parties and that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector and the Commissioner were perfectly legal and valid. The appeal filed by one of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned District Judge, upholding the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, both the plaintiffs have filed the present Regular second Appeal in this Court.