1. Dispute over partition of joint land—partially sought via revenue proceedings and partially via civil suit—concerning jurisdiction and the plea of partial partition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1475
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Sujan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Karan Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3876 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 26474 of 2018)
Decided On : 11-05-2022
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, specifically regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court, the nature of the suit property, and the applicability of land revenue.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
LAND REVENUE - Partition of Agricultural Land - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Sections 3(1), 4, 111, 158(2)(xvii))
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a civil suit for partial partition of land and a separate petition under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the civil suit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found the suit bad for partial partition and held that the land was not subject to land revenue. The Court allowed the appeal based on the judgment in Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs and others v. Chandrika and others AIR 2016 SC 1213.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the civil court, the nature of the suit property, and the applicability of land revenue. The court also considered the plea of partial partition and the findings of the Revenue Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definitions and exclusions under Sections 3(1), 4, and 158(2)(xvii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 to determine the jurisdiction of the civil court and the applicability of land revenue. The court also considered the findings of the Revenue Court in deciding the case.
Final Decision: The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for further consideration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Sanchar Anand, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Kumar, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Sanchar Anand, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Kumar, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims civil jurisdiction due to non-agricultural use and abolished land revenue; respondent argues bar under Section 158 and bad for partial partition. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. The court observed that if land falls outside the scope of the Revenue Act, the plea of partial partition is inapplicable. (Para 20 , 21 )
4. A suit for partition is not bad for partial partition if the property falls outside the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. (Para 21 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration. (Para 23 )
6. When does a civil court have jurisdiction over a partition suit despite the bar under the Punjab Land Revenue Act?
A civil court may have jurisdiction if the land is not used for agricultural purposes—such as when it contains residential or commercial buildings—and is not assessed to land revenue, thus falling outside the scope of Section 158. (Para 13 , 15 , 20 )
7. Is a suit for partition of only a portion of joint land necessarily bad for partial partition?
No. If the specific portion sought for partition is found to be property that falls outside the scope of the Revenue Act and the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts, the plea of partial partition cannot be urged. (Para 21 )
8. How does the abolition of land revenue in a state affect the jurisdiction of revenue courts under the Punjab Land Revenue Act?
The repeal of provisions relating to land revenue—such as Section 48 in Haryana—affects whether land is considered an estate subject to the Revenue Act's jurisdiction and the subsequent bar on civil court jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 18 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the first respondent in RSA No. 463 of 2013. The High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed the said appeal and dismissed Civil Suit No. 774 of 2003 filed by the appellant.
3. It would appear that the parties are joint owners of 52 kanal 4 marla of land. A suit was instituted by the appellant in respect of 10 kanal and 14 marla. He also instituted separate petition purporting to be under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') in respect of 41 kanal and 10 marla of land. The proceedings came to be contested. The Assistant Collector before whom the petition in respect of agricultural land was filed decreed the revenue suit by its order dated 17.12.2003 and listed the matter for further proceedings.
The Collector dismissed the revision by the first respondent by order dated 29.07.2005.
The Commissioner, Gurgaon, however, by order dated 24.07.2008 allowed the further revision. The appellant, thereupon, challenged the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.
4. The trial Court decreed the present Suit in respect of 10 Kanal 14 marla by decree dated 14.05.2009. First appeal was carried by the first respondent before the first Appellate Court.
The Financial Commissioner by order dated 07.04.2010 restored the order of the Assistant Collector relating to partition of agricultural land measuring 41 Kanal 10 marla.
On 31.08.2012, the Additional District Judge dismissed the First Appeal filed by the first respondent. The first respondent carried the matter in the Regular Second Appeal.
It is in the said Second Regular Appeal, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the same as noted and the suit came to be dismissed.
FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
5. The High Court found merit in the contention of the first respondent. It is found that the present suit is bad for partial partition. It is next found in regard to the attempt made by pleading that the land was subjected to land revenue that even applicability of land revenue in the State of Haryana has been repealed long time back. Thereafter, the Court finds that the appellant should have availed the remedy of seeking seeking partition of the entire land in one suit and he was not prevented to do so in law. Thereafter, finding shelter in judgment of this Court in Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs and others v. Chandrika and others AIR 2016 SC 1213, the Court proceeded to allow the appeal.
6. We have heard Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case where though the land may be estate within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Act having regard to the findings of the High Court which we have just adverted to viz., that the land revenue has been abolished for the State of Haryana and having regard to the concurrent findings rendered by the two Courts, which held that in the land in question (10 Kanal 14 marla), there are buildings which occupied nearly 8 canals, these findings of fact have been wrongly interfered with. In fact, he would submit that on the reasoning employed by the High Court and the judgment of the coordinate Bench referred to by the learned Single Judge, result should have been in favour of the appellant The appellant rightly maintained the suit before the civil Court, the land having been transformed from whatever it may have been in the beginning. He would also submit that the order of the Financial Commissioner in respect of the property which was agricultural land has become final.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would point out that the proceedings in the Financial Court regarding agricultural land has not become final. He points out that there are four stages; while it may have attained finality in regard to the first stage, it cannot preclude the rights of the first respond
