YASIN ALI MIRDHA Vs. RADHA GOBINDA CHAUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that an order for partition of an estate made by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Sunamganj on the 15th April 1913 and confirmed successively by the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet on the 14th July 1913, by the Commissioner on the 6th December 1913 and by the Chief Commissioner on the 22nd November 1914, was without jurisdiciton and was consequently inoperative in law. The case for the plaintiffs is that they objected to the applications for partition presented by the defendants to the Revenue Authorities, on the ground that some of the lands of the estates sought to be partitioned were joint with the lands of other estates and the Revenue Authorities were not competent, under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886, to effect a partition of lands included in several estates. This objection was overruled as untenable. The substantial matter in controversy in the present litigation is the question of the legality of the order made by the Revenue Authorities.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge has held that the decision of the Revenue Court was not ultra tires and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declaration and injunction asked for in the plaint.

(3.) To appreciate the true position, reference may be made to the application for imperfect partition, which was presented on the 31st October 1911 by the first two defendants, and may be regarded as typical, as the applications presented by the 3rd defendant on the 21st February 1912, and by the 4th defendant on the 22nd March 1912, respectively may be treated, for the solution of the question raised before us, as similar in scope and purpose. The application of the first two defendants describes the estate to be divided as Taluk Krishnamani (Nos. 24, 202-12) appertaining to Perganah Pagla, total revenue Rs. 6-3 annas. Then follows the statement that account No. 1 of that Mahal stands in the names of the petitioners and bears the total revenue Rs. 4-2 annas. This indicates the applicants own two-thirds share in the Taluk. The next column specifies the Mouzas included in the estate, namely, Dekharhant, Dhamdharpur, and Kastachpur. The fourth column states that the applicants have a two thirds share of the original Mahal. Then follow in the sixth column the names of the other sharers with their respective shares. In the seventh column it is prayed that the lands of the original Mahal, the subject-matter of the application, may be imperfectly partitioned and an allotment in respect of two-thirds share may be made in favour of the applicants. The eighth column contains important statement that the lands of the original Mahal in respect of which the application is made are joint with six Mahals (names and numbers specified). The applicants pray that the lands of the original Mahal in respect of which this prayer is made may be separated from those of the other Mahals and the same may be partitioned, and, treating it as 16 annas, the applicants may be given an allotment representing two thirds of 16 annas. Then follows the statement that the proprietors of the joint Mahals have all been made parties to the proceeding. The question thus arises, whether the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to effect a portion of an estate when the lands of that estate, in whole or in part, are joint with the lands of oilier estates.