Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Ist Appellate Court has erred in reading the evidence on record, resulting into miscarriage of justice and has framed following substantial questions of law, which arises for adjudication of this case: -

"1. Whether failure of contesting respondents to challenge mutation Ex.P-1 sanctioned on the basis of private partition and the subsequent entries of revenue records would imply acceptance of the factum of private partition?
The learned Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs did not seek affirmation of the private partition from the revenue authorities in terms of Section 123 of the Act. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to Section 123 of the Act, which reads thus: -
"Affirmation of partition privately affected: -
(1) 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-

The law recognizes that co-sharers in the joint holding can effect private partition of the land as per their shares and approach the Halqa Patwari to enter into register of mutation the factum of partition. In this regard, no formal application is required to be made as contemplated under Section 123 of the Act. After the entry is made in the register of mutation, it is placed before the revenue officer for the purpose of attestation and sanctioning and if any objection is raised, which the revenue officer considers to be valid, he would refuse to sanction the mutation, but if no objection is raised, then the mutation is sanctioned and its effect is reflected in the other revenue records. It is also manifestly clear that the revenue officer does not effect partition in case of private partition, rather he only affirms it. The learned lower Appellate Court has erred in relying upon decision in the case of Khem Dutt and others (Supra) in which the partition was made with the intervention of the revenue officer and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As regards, judgment in the case of Arjan Singh and others (Supra) is concerned, it was observed therein that "if partition of agricultural land takes place even by consent of the parties, it is recognised only when report is made to the Patwari and then proceedings are taken under the Land Revenue Act for finalization of partition in accordance with law. Admittedly, nothing of the sort was done in this case". Again the said judgment is not applicable because in that case, the private partition was not brought to the notice of the Patwari in any manner, whereas in the present case, it is very much brought to the notice of the revenue authorities by way of application dated 21.7.1981 on the basis of which, mutation No.771 (EXP1) was duly sanctioned on 19.3.1982 without any objection and the parties entered into their respective exclusive possession thereafter.

Learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of "Ajmer Singh Vs. Dharam Singh" 2006(1) PLJ 442 in which this Court has held that failure to seek affirmation of private partition, if otherwise proved on record, cannot be negated only for reason of non-affirmation from revenue authorities. In the said case, suit was filed for pre-emption on the basis of being a cosharer and the evidence was led that the plaintiff was no more a co-sharer because the land was already privately partitioned. The issue was with regard to the recognition of private partition about which this Court has held that since the word has been used as 'may' in Section 123 of the Act, therefore, the provision is directory. Again this judgment is not relevant for the purpose of this case because admittedly, the plaintiffs had brought to the notice of the revenue authorities about the factum of private partition on the basis of which land in dispute was partitioned between the parties and mutation No.771 (Ex.P1) was duly sanctioned by the revenue officers without any objection by any one of the co-sharers. The parties thereafter, entered into their respective possession and the suit for possession had to be filed when other co-sharer namely, Jani Ram (predecessor-in- interest) forcibly entered into possession.