Civil courts have no jurisdiction in matters relating to partition and delivery of possession of property allotted on partition. The remedy for obtaining possession of such property is to apply to the Revenue Officer under Section 134 of the Revenue Act, 1953.

R.L. KHURANA, J.—The appellants before this Court are the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 4, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs. They have preferred the present second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.1991 of the learned Additional District Judge (1), Shimla, affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.7.1987 of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kinnaur at Kalpa.

2. The subject-matter of the dispute between the parties is the land measuring 0-00-48 Hects. comprising of old khata No. 114 min, khatauni No. 158 and khasra No. 249/1 corresponding to the present khata No. 67, khatauni No. 125, Khasra Nos. 640 and 641 of village Aasrang, Tehsil Moorang, District Kinnaur, specifically described in the plaint and the Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the land in dispute was joint of the parties. The defendants sometime in the year 1981 without the consent and permission of the plaintiffs started construction of a house in such joint land in an unauthorized manner, where upon the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from raising such construction. The defendants did not put in appearance in such suit. They were proceeded against exparte. They, however, succeeded in raising the construction. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed ex parte against the defendants whereby a mandatory injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for the demolition/removal of the construction raised by the defendants.

4. The plaintiffs thereafter applied to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Moorang for the partition of the joint holding of the parties. Such partition was allowed on 6.8.1983 and consequent upon such partition the land in dispute came to be allotted to the plaintiffs. The necessary mutation qua such partition was sanctioned on 17.10.1983.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that since the land in dispute has come to their share in the partition ordered by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, they are entitled to possession thereof by way of demolition of the super structure unauthorisedly raised by the defendants. They have accordingly prayed for possession of the land in dispute and mandatory injunction for the demolition/ removal of the super structure raised by the defendants therein.

6. The defendants while resisting the suit asserted their ownership qua the land in dispute. Objections as to the maintainability of the suit and valuation of the suit were raised. It was pleaded that the earlier ex parte decree was obtained by fraud.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Senior Sub Judge:—

1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? O.P.D.

2. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is its proper value? O.P.D.

3. Whether this suit is barred as alleged under para 4 of the W.S.? O.P.D.

4. Whether the suit land fell in share of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 in partition, if so to what effect? O.P.P.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit land by demolition of the structure standing on it? O.P.P.

6. Relief. The learned Senior Sub Judge found issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the defendants and issue No. 5 against the plaintiffs. Issue Nos. 2 and 4 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequent upon the findings recorded under issue Nos. 1, 3 and 5, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge vide judgment and decree dated 13.7.1987.

8. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Shimla, vide judgment and decree dated 10.7.1991.

9. Admittedly, on a previous occasion the plaintiffs had obtained an ex parte decree against the defendants for a mandatory injunction for the remo