Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: private partition in Richhpal Etc vs Ranjit Etc on 10 April, 2024Matching Fragments
B. Private Partition - non-approval of Revenue Officer - Effect thereof -
30. Proceeding further, apart from the fact that documents Ex.P1 & P2 are inadmissible in evidence on account of these being unregistered documents, the alleged family partition was liable to be ignored for another reason.
31. Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, provides for application to be moved before the revenue officer for partition of his share in the land by any joint owner. The subsequent provisions lay down the procedure to effect the partition. Section 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is relevant in this case, as it provides about affirmation of partition privately effected. It reads as under: -
"123. Affirmation of partition privately affected: In any case in which a partition has been made without the intervention of a Revenue-officer, and party thereto may apply to a Revenue-officer for an order affirming the partition".
32. It is only after the affirmation by the concerned Revenue Officer of the partition effected privately by the co sharers, that it is considered to have come into force. In the case of Suba Singh (supra), it has been held by this Court that partition of the agricultural land outside the Court i.e., private partition becomes valid, only if same is brought to the notice of the revenue authorities and sanction is obtained and thereafter, Khata is divided, otherwise 19 of 32 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049626 RSA-1296-1987 2024:PHHC:049626 RSA-1297-1987 2024:PHHC:049627 co-sharers continued to be joint owners in the same Khata. It was held as under: -
37. The aforesaid documents i.e., mutation No.293 and 294 both dated 09.11.1960, would make it quite clear that the revenue authorities never approved the private partition purported to have been effected amongst the parties by way of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Even if these documents i.e. mutations No.293 & 294 are kept out of consideration and not taken into account, the Jamabandis, as available on record, in respect of the land of both the villages would clearly show that all the three lines of Dhanna are still shown to be co- owners in possession of the land of the two villages. Said factual position is disputed before this court. All these circumstances clearly indicate that private partition allegedly effected amongst the parties vide Ex.P1 & P2 was neither implemented nor was approved by the revenue authorities.
39. Thus, looking from any angle, the findings of the Courts below on issue No.1 to 4 cannot be sustained. Finding on issues No.1 & 2 are reversed by holding that alleged partition dated 06.06.1955 (Ex.P1) and 25.05.1957 (Ex.P2) are not admissible in evidence. These documents cannot be taken into account so as to hold the private partition. It is further held that parties are co-sharers in possession of the suit land of village Kasni Kalan as well as of the land of village Kalali. On issue No.3, it is held that possession of the plaintiffs on the suit land of village Kasni Kalan is in the capacity of co-sharer and not as exclusive owner. Issue No.4 is decided in favour of the defendants by holding that the entries of the revenue record showing them to be co-sharers in the suit land, are correct.