Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Dharam Singh Satawansingh v. Densingh Sitaram, AIR 1950 Nag 102 it has been held as under:

"Partition of land revenue paying estate has to be made by a Collector under Section 54, Civil P.C., or by a revenue officer under Chap. 11, C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction or power to effect a partition of land revenue paying estate or to reopen a partition already made by a Collector or revenue officer. The duty of a Civil Court is to give effect to the partition made by a Collector or a revenue officer in exercise of the cowers vested in him. The power to deliver possession in accordance with the partition made is quite distinct from the power to effect a partition. A Collector or a revenue officer effecting a partition has the power to deliver possession in pursuance of the partition. The existence of the power is necessary to complete the partition.
[Explanation : - A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.] In view of such provisions and especially explanation to Sec. 2(2) and sub-Rule (2) to Rule 18, Order 20 which provide to pass preliminary decree qua the properties other than properties assessed to the payment of revenue to Government, the decree passed directing to partition the agricultural land will be the final decree as the Civil Court has nothing further to do in the matter, which is required to be done when properties other than agricultural land are ordered to be partitioned. After the decree directing the Collector to partition the agricultural lands subject to land revenue is passed, the Civil Court has even not to execute the decree; the Collector has to partition and put the concerned parties into the possession of the portions fallen to their share. The Civil Court has then not to NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23710/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined even adjudicate any issue. Hence by passing the decree qua agricultural lands the suit is finally and completely disposed of. The decree passed ordering to partition the properties both agricultural as well as non-agricultural properties, will be the final decree so far as it relates to agricultural lands subject to land revenue, while it will be the preliminary decree so far as it relates to the properties, not assessed to the payment of revenue to Government.
10. Necessary case laws, some of which are cited by the parties, throwing light on the proposition may be referred to though in view of above clear provisions no case-law is required to be referred to. The Bombay High Court had an occasion to deal with the question in D. M. Jacinto & Anr. V/s. J.D.B. Fernandes - 1939 Bombay 454 = 41 Bom. L.R. 921. Keeping Rule 20, Order 18, Civil Procedure Code in mind, it is held that when the decree is sent to the Collector for carrying out the partition of the agricultural land and subsequently the application is filed by the parties to the Court to send the decree and papers to the Collector, the same does not amount to execution. In that regard, it is further observed that when the decree is passed by the Court, its duties are finished and it is for the Collector to partition the property and put the parties into possession. When decree, may be a preliminary decree, is passed in a partition suit but agricultural lands are to be divided, the same would be a final decree as the actual partition of the agricultural lands is to be carried out by the Collector and nothing further in this regard is required to be done by the Court. In the case of Ramabai Govind V/s. Anant Daji - AIR (32) 1945 Bombay 338, the question was relating to limitation. In that connection, it is held that after the decree for partition of revenue paying land is passed, the application to send the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23710/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined papers to the Collector is not governed by Art. 181 or 182 of the Limitation Act. In that decision, it is observed at page 340 that the decree passed will not fall within the definition of a preliminary decree as given in the Explanation to Sec. 2, sub-

- AIR 1926 Bombay 258 has laid down that once the Collector executes the partition, the Court cannot send the case again to the Collector for repartition. It is also held that the Collector must follow the terms of the decree. If he disregards the terms of the decree and divides the property not in conformity with the terms of the decree, the Court is entitled to interfere. The Collector has no power to read the decree together with the judgment so that he can partition the land in a manner which is not contemplated by the decree. The High Court of Sind had an occasion to deal with the question in the case of Chandulal Jasumal & Ors. V/s. Hafiz s/o. Din Muhammad & Ors. AIR (30) 1943 Sind 7. What is held therein is that the act of effecting the partition under Sec. 54, and Rule 18, Order 20 C.P. Code is a ministerial work of the Court. The Collector therefore cannot disregard the terms of the decree. He cannot divide the property in contravention of the terms of the decree, and if he does so the Court is entitled to refer the case back to the Collector, to partition the property in accordance with the terms of the decree. The Collector cannot alter the decree. The Court cannot dictate to the Collector the manner in which the estate shall be partitioned or divided. The Collector must divide the estate in accordance with the rights declared in the decree, but in the manner he thinks best bearing in mind the need and the convenience of the land as a revenue paying entity. So far as shares are concerned, the Collector is bound by declaration of the rights of the parties. The Collector has also to esteem the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23710/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined preferential right declared qua particular piece of property. The Court has no power to fetter the discretion of the Collector to overrule the powers conferred upon the Collector under Sec. 54 and Order 20, Rule 18, C.P. Code. The High Court of Madras in Sree Rajah Mantripragada Venkataraghava Rao Bahadur, Zamindar Garu & Ors. V/s. Sri Rajah Mantripragada Venkata Hanumantha Rao Bahadur, Zamindar Garu (deceased) & Ors. - AIR (32) 1945 Madras 336, has when occasion arose laid down that when the Collector under Sec. 54 of the Civil Procedure Code partitions the agricultural lands subject to the Government revenue, the Civil Court has no power to hear the objection because once the Court sends the decree to the Collector for action under Sec. 54, the matter passes entirely out of its hands and Court has no right to interfere. The Court has no power to examine his work or direct him to make a fresh partition and even cannot direct to modify the partition. In the case of Dharam Singh Satawansingh V/s. Deosingh Sitaram - AIR (37) 1950 Nagpur 102, what is observed is that the partition of land revenue paying estate has to be made by the Collector under Sec. 54 of the Civil Procedure Code or by any other Revenue Officer, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction or power to effect the partition of the land revenue paying estate or reopen the partition already made by the Collector or the Revenue Officer. The duty of the Court is to give effect to the partition made by the Collector or the Revenue Officer, but the power to deliver the possession in accordance with partition made is quite distinct from a power to effect the partition. The Collector effecting the partition has the power to deliver the possession so as to complete the partition, but if that is not done a party can approach the Civil Court with a suit to recover the possession in accordance with the partition effected by the Collector or the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23710/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined Revenue Officer. The High Court of Bombay, in Ningappa Balappa & Ors. (supra) has laid down that after the decree for partition of the land assessed to land revenue has been passed, the Court has nothing further to do with the decree. The decree is to be executed and the partition is to be effected by the Collector. There cannot be therefore any execution proceeding before the Court. However, the Court is not entirely deprived of controlling the action taken by the Collector, but this control is very limited. The Court has to exercise with limited control only if the Collector contravenes the decretal order or transgresses the law relating to partition or refuses to execute the decree. The duty of the Court comes to an end when it passes the decree and when no execution proceeding can lie before the Civil Court, it is not open to the Court to entertain an application under Sec. 47 and give direction to the Collector qua the manner in which the decree is to be executed. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Bhagwansingh V/s. Babu Shiv Prasad & Anr. - AIR 1974 M. P. 12, while dealing with the issue has held that when the Court passes the preliminary decree for partition and transfers the decreeto the Collector for effecting the partition, the Civil Court becomes functus officio, and if subsequently final decree is passed by the Court it is without jurisdiction and not enforceable. The Supreme Court, in the case of Khemchand Shankar Choudhary & Anr. V/s. Vishnu Hari Patil & Ors. - AIR 1983 S.C. 124 has held that once the decree for partition is passed and the same is sent to the Collector for effecting the partition of the agricultural land and thereafter the property is transferred, the transferees during the pendency of the partition can appear and claim equitable partition even though they were not the parties to the suit in the Civil Court. The Collector has not to in that case fold the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23710/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined hands and return the papers to the Civil Court. If there is no dispute regarding the transferees, the Court may proceed to make allotment of the property in an equitable manner instead of rejecting their claim for such equitable partition on the ground that they had no locus standi. Where there is no dispute in such a case and the Collector makes an equitable partition he would neither be violating a decree nor transgressing any law. The High Court of Bombay, in the case of Dev Gopal Savant V/s. Vasudev Vithal Savant - 12 Bom. 372, has held that when the preliminary decree is passed with regard to the estate subject to land revenue the execution thereof is entirely in Collector's hand, but that does not deprive the Court of a judicial control of its decree, as for instance, if it should appear to have been obtained by fraud or surprise, or if the Collector acts in a bad faith or contravenes the command of the Court or transgresses the law. If it is alleged that the Collector made objectionable partition, it would not be a ground for the Court to interfere. In the case of Shrinivas Hanmant V/s. Gurunath Shrinivass - 15 Bombay 527, it is held that the Collector is not subject to Superintendence of the Court or revisional jurisdiction of the Court. The Court has no power to examine the work of the Collector or direct him to make fresh partition. It is also made clear that the Collector cannot refuse to carry out the decree. In the case of Purushottam V/s. Balkrishna - 28 Bombay 238, it is made clear that the Court has the power to set aside wholly or partly a partition made by the Collector, in execution of a decree sent to him under Sec. 265, C. P. Code, 1882 (now Sec. 54) if it is found that the Collector has contravened the decretal command or has acted ultra vires because action of the Collector is subject to the control and correction of the Court. In the case of Ramachandra Dinkar NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23710/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2024 undefined V/s. Krishnaji Sakharam - AIR 1915 Bombay 279 = 40 Bombay 118 what is made clear is that the Collector should be treated to be the agent of the Civil Court and therefore the Court has a power to correct the mistake made by the Collector in carrying out partition. In Ningappa Balappa's case (supra), it is made clear that after the decree for partition of land assessed to revenue is passed, the Court has nothing further to do with the decree. The decree is to be executed and partition is to be effected by the Collector. Execution proceedings can never be before the Court. It is also made clear that the Court has a limited control which is to be exercised only if the Collector contravenes the decretal order or transgresses the law relating to partition, or refuses to execute the decree.