RSA No.3119 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 17.01.2011 RSA No. 2104 of 2010 (O&M) Sukhbir Kaur and another .....Appellants Versus Gurjit Singh and others .......Respondents RSA No. 3119 of 2010 (O&M) Sukhbir Kaur and another .....Appellants Versus Kehar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA RSA No.3119 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Vide this order, the above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of by one common order as they have arisen out of the same suit. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was joint property of the parties. Plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the land described in the head note of the plaint along with defendants. Plaintiffs were residing in Canada for the last five years. Defendants no. 1 to 5 by taking undue benefit of their absence filed partition application in the Court of Assistant Collector Grade I (Tehsildar Mansa) which was later transferred to the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade Tehsil Sardulgarh. Plaintiffs also procured sanand takseem dated 17.6.2004. In the absence of the plaintiffs, partition proceedings conducted by the authorities were null and void and were not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 1 to 5 had furnished wrong addresses of the plaintiffs. The partition proceedings had been conducted in a hurried manner. Against order dated 19.9.2003 passed by the Collector Sub Division Mansa. Defendants No. 22 to 26 and 30 and 31 had filed revision petition before Commissioner Faridkot. A compromise was effected between the parties and an adverse order from the Court was taken in the absence of the plaintiff and the partition proceedings were got finalized. Plaintiffs were still in possession of the suit land. RSA No.3119 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Defendants No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in their written statements averred that the partition had been sanctioned and entry in the khasra girdawari had been changed in accordance thereto. Answering defendant had been allotted 411 kanals 5 marlas of land. The Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in terms of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short `the Act'). Defendants No. 11, 16 to 18 and 67 averred in their written statements that the partition proceedings had since been concluded and now the same could not be challanged by the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 2, 19 to 24 also took up the similar pleas in their written statements. Defendants No. 75, 76, 78, 81 and 87 and legal representatives of defendant No. 84 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether plaintiffs and defendant No. 59 & 60 are in exclusive possession of suit land measuring 69 kanals 7 marlas comprising in Rect. & Killa nos.13//3(8-))4(8-0)6/1(5- 7)7(8-0)8(8-0)9//18(8-0)24(8-0) 25(8-0)?OPP 2. Whether order dated 17.6.2004 of partition is illegal null and void/OPP 3.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaration prayed?OPD 4.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD 5.Whether plaintiffs have concealed material facts?If so its effect?OPD 6.Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the suit?OPD RSA No.3119 of 2010 (O&M) 4 7.Whether suit is bad for misjoinder or necessary parties?If so its effect?OPD 8.Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No.1 to 5 and 11,12,18,17,21 (through legal representatives) preferred separate appeals and the same were allowed by the Additional District Judge Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001. Hence, the present appeals by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had erred in allowing the appeals. In fact, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable. The partition proceedings had been carried on at the back of the plaintiffs. No notice had been issued to the plaintiffs during partition proceedings as their addresses had not been correctly given. Section 158 of the Act reads as under:- “158.Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revneue Officers.--Except as otherwise provided by this Act-- (1) a Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the (State Government) or a Revenue officer is empowered by this Act to dispose of or taken cognizance of the manner in which the {State Government} or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act' and in particular-- (2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of RSA No.3119 of 2010 (O&M) 5 the following matters namely:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (xvii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” In Rai Jasbir Singh vs. Balwant Singh and others 2006 (1)RCR(Civil)12, it has been held as under:- “10.This contention is also without any merit. Section 158 of the Act specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers. In order to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Collector, a provision for filing of appeals before the higher Revenue Authorities has been made in Section 13 of the Act. The plaintiffs without exhausting the remedies available to them under Section 13, approached the Civil Court to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Collector.” Thus, in the present case, the partition proceedings were carried out by the Revenue Officer and in case the plaintiffs had any grievance qua the said order, they could have challanged the same by way of appeal or revision. The jurisdiction of the Civil court was,however, barred in terms of Section 158 of the Act. The Civil Court could only interfere if the question of tittle was involved or if the order passed by the Revenue Officer was without jurisdiction. However, in the present case, no question of title was involved and RSA No.3119 of 2010 (O&M) 6 the order had been passed by the Revenue Officer while exercising his jurisdiction. Learned Additional District Judge had,thus, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in these appeals. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 17, 2011 arya