CHANCHALA DEVI Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) PREDECESSOR of the appellants, named Sarwan Singh, was one of the several co-owners of certain land. One of the co-owners, named Soma, had filed a petition for partition of that land some-time prior to the year 1965. It appears from the record that partition had been carried out. There were tenants on that land. Perhaps the tenants were not made party to the partition proceedings and, therefore, the partition among the co- owners did not affect their rights as tenants in the land held by them as such. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Sanad of the partition was drawn. However, from the judgments of the two Courts below it appears that the alleged Sanad was not proved, because in neither of the two judgments it finds mention. Thereafter consolidation took place in the village. On the conclusion of the consolidation process, when re- partitioning was being done, the persons, who were tenants under the joint owners, applied for allotment of land to them out of the individual shares of the co-owners. The Consolidation Officer passed an order that the tenants be allotted certain specified areas out of the shares of each of the co- sharers, who were party to the earlier partition proceedings. Thereafter the plaintiff (appellants' predecessor) appears to have approached the Consolidation Officer for the review of that order. That application was dismissed. The predecessor of the appellants then filed a suit out of which this appeal has arisen. In the suit he impleaded the tenants as contesting tenants and his co-sharers as proforma defendants and pleaded that when the partition had already taken place, the Consolidation Authorities had no jurisdiction to order the partition on completion of consolidation process.

(3.) TRIAL Court dismissed the suit. Appeal filed by the appellants stands dismissed by the learned District Judge. Now the appellants have come in appeal to this Court.