R. S. A. No. 2863 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2863 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 21, 2011 Mehnga Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Santa Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. G. S. Nagra, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 8609-C of 2010 : Deficiency in court fee is said to have been made good. The application is, therefore, allowed. C. M. No. 8611-C of 2010 : This is application for impleading legal representatives of plaintiff no.4 Harpal Singh (since deceased). It is alleged that Harpal Singh has left behind widow and a minor son and a minor daughter, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application, as his legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject R. S. A. No. 2863 of 2010 (O&M) 2 to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of Harpal Singh (since deceased) for the purpose of this appeal and are permitted to file the appeal as such. Main Appeal : This is second appeal by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and legal representatives of plaintiff no.4. Plaintiffs were successful in the trial court but have been non-suited by the lower appellate court. Plaintiffs' case is that plaintiff no.1 is co-sharer to the extent of 25 kanals 05 marlas and plaintiffs no.2 and 3 are co-sharers to the extent of 18 kanals 18¾ marlas each in joint land measuring 448 kanals 03 marlas. Partition order dated 02.05.1991 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur, as affirmed in appeal by Collector vide order dated 11.05.1992 and in revision by Financial Commissioner vide order dated 28.11.1996, is null and void etc. because plaintiffs have been allotted lesser land than their share in the joint land. Defendants no.1 and 2 contested the suit and controverted the plaint allegations and defended the impugned partition order dated 02.05.1991. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2005, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendants no.1 and 2 has been allowed R. S. A. No. 2863 of 2010 (O&M) 3 by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2010 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, instant second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and legal representatives of plaintiff no.4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellants have been allotted lesser share in the partition order and therefore, the said order is null and void. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs should have raised the question of title in the partition proceedings and thereupon, the Revenue Court could either decide the said question itself or could refer it to Civil Court for adjudication. However, the plaintiffs have not shown that they had raised any such question of title in the partition proceedings before Revenue Court or that the same was not adjudicated upon by the Revenue Court. Consequently, final partition order passed by Revenue Court cannot be challenged in Civil Court, particularly when opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Revenue Court to all the concerned parties. Perusal of impugned partition order dated 02.05.1991 reveals that no objection was preferred against proposed mode of partition. Consequently, the said partition order, which has been upheld by Revenue Courts in appeal and revision, cannot be challenged in Civil Court. Finding R. S. A. No. 2863 of 2010 (O&M) 4 of lower appellate court to this effect is perfectly justified and does not suffer from any error, much less illegality or perversity so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. March 21, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE