The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction in property disputes when the question of title is raised, and the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J—The appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff, whereas, respondents are the defendants but respondent No. 1 is the contesting defendant, who felt aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 30.6.1990 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Dalhousie and preferred an appeal against them before the District Judge, Chamba Division Chamba, who has accepted his appeal vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.1993 and set aside the decree and judgment dated 30.6.1990 of Sub Judge 1st Class with the result the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed, whereas it was decreed by Sub Judge 1st Class and the partition order dated 21.9.1983 and mutation entry No. 467 dated 21.2.1986 were declared illegal and void and not binding on his rights. Sub Judge 1st Class had also restrained the defendants by decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in Khasra Nos. 1632/406, 1636/407, 425 and 1646/472, Kita 4 Khata Khatauni No. 69/98 min, situate in Mohal Gola, Pargana Bhatti Tikri. Hence the present regular second appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure.

2. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

3. The following substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal :

1. Whether the first appellate Court has erred in holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit of the plaintiff in the absence of any such preliminary objection taken by defendant No, 1 Chamelo in his written statement, issue framed, evidence adduced during trial and ground taken in the appeal?

2. Whether the first appellate Court has misread and mis-interpreted the pleadings and evidence on record, oral as well as documentary to come to the conclusion that the land in dispute was not partitioned as alleged by the plaintiff?

3. Whether the first appellate Court has misread and mis-interpreted the order dated 21.9.1983, Ex. PC, to come to the conclusion that it was rightly passed ex parte against the plaintiff as he had failed to put in appearance in the partition proceedings before Assistant Collector 1st Grade?

4. So far bar of Civil Court jurisdiction is concerned, it is purely a question of law which could be agitated before the first appellate Court and there is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that in the absence of pleadings, issue, evidence and even the ground of appeal the first appellate Court could not consider it. Now, the question arises whether he has decided it erroneously? The answer is in positive. No doubt, Section 171(2) (xvii) of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953, puts a bar that Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any claim of partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of proceedings for partition, but qualifies that a question as to title should not be involved in any of the property of which partition is sought. From the provision, it is clear that there is no absolute bar and the moment the question of title is raised, the Civil Court gets the jurisdiction.

5. In catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, guidelines have been laid down for deciding the question of Civil Courts jurisdiction. In Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 SC 78, the basic judgment of the Constitution Bench, the learned Judges after reviewing the case law on the question of maintainability of civil suit, have laid down seven propositions, out of which two relevant propositions are as under:— "(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the Civil Courts jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judici