The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in partition cases, particularly in relation to revenue paying estate, as governed by Section 54, Civil P. C. and related provisions.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal against the appellate judgment dated 27th March 1962 of the learned District Judge, Bhandara.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit, from which this appeal arises, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara for partition and separate possession of his 1/6th share in the joint Hindu family properties described in Schedules A to E attached to the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is the second wife of the defendant No. 1 and is the step-mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1 from his first wife. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the defendant No. 1 from the defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant No. 1 from his first wife and is the full brother of the plaintiff.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an agreement inter alia to the effect that the properties shown in Schedules A, B and C be divided into 6 shares. Accordingly, on 30th January 1960 a decree in terms of the compromise was passed. The matter was thereafter referred to a Commissioner who in due course made a report effecting partition. While the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 accepted the report of the Commissioner the defendants 1 to 4, who are present appellants, objected to the said report. The grounds of objections were inter alia that the civil court could not partition agricultural lands and that the partition was Unfair and unequitable.

4. The trial Court held that the partition was fair and partition on revenue paying lands could be effected by Civil Court; it, therefore, passed a decree confirming the report of the Commissioner.

5. The defendants 1 to 4 filed an appeal in the District Court at Bhandara. The District Court also found that the Court was competent to effect partition of land-revenue paying lands in the manner it had been done by the Commissioner and that the partition was fair.

6. Before me, the contentions taken are that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to effect partition of revenue paying estate, that the partition was contrary to the decree passed by the Court on 30th January 1960 inasmuch as it did not divide the lands into 6 shares but gave l/3rd share to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 5 jointly and 2/3rd share to the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and lastly that the partition was unjust and unfair.

7. I shall first deal with the first contention of the appellants. Section 54, Civil P. C., provides that where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the partition of the estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with the law, if any, for the time being in force relating to the partition, or the separate possession of shares, of such estates. Order 20, Rule 18 (1) of the Civil P. C. provides that where the Court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession of a share therein, then, if and in so far as the decree relates to an estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government, the decree shall declare the rights of the several parties interested in the property, but shall direct such partition or separation to be made by the Collector, or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with such declaration and with the provisions of Section 54, Civil P. C. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 pertains to immoveable property other than an estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government and provides that in such a case the Court may pass a preliminary decree and give further directions. Order 26 Rule 13 of the Civil P. C. provides that where a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, the Court may, in any case not provided for by Section 54. issue a commissi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document