HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J
Santosh Devi – Appellant
Versus
Chhotu Ram – Respondent
Judgment :
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014 passed by Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short, "BOR") whereby, the appeal No.3410/2013 filed by the petitioners/appellants/defendants (for short, “defendants”) has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff (for short, “plaintiff”) filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants (for short, “defendants”) and the proforma respondents No.2 to 10/defendants claiming the subject agricultural land to be their undivided ancestral property. Therein, the Court of Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Amer, Headquarter Jaipur (for short, “trial Court”) passed a preliminary decree of partition vide judgment dated 18.10.2012. The first appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendants came to be dismissed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2013 which was affirmed by the BOR while dismissing the second appeal preferred by the defendants vide judgment impugned dated 10.03.2014.
3. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the defendants made two-f

A clerical error in a decree's operative portion does not invalidate a judgment if substantive issues are resolved, and prior partition must be proven by the defendants.
The First Appellate Court erred by failing to frame appropriate consideration points under C.P.C., affecting the legality of its judgment in the partition suit.
Co-sharers in ancestral property retain their rights despite lack of possession; adverse possession cannot extinguish these rights.
Civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate partition of agricultural land when no tenancy dispute exists, as per Section 242(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
The trial Court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over agricultural land, necessitating a determination of shares among legal heirs as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
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 cou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a party agrees to the mode and manner of partition before the Commissioner, they cannot resile from the same.
In disputes regarding partition of joint Hindu family property, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting partition, and the presumption of jointness remains unless clear evidence to the contra....
Partition – Mere exhibition of marriage card cannot not prove that property was undivided.
The court ruled that all necessary parties must be included in partition disputes, and exclusion invalidates prior decrees, ensuring a fair adjudication on property rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.