IMPORTANT POINT –
H.P. Land Revenue Act - Revenue Record - The revenue record can be used for collateral purposes, but cannot from the sole basis to oust the collateral from claiming or establishing his/her title to the land. (Para 21)

(Dev Darshan Sud, J.) - This appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge reversing the judgment and decree in favour of the appellant and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff who had challenged Ex.P-1 order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kullu, dated 5.5.1989 as affirmed by the Collector vide Ex.P-2 rejecting the claim of the appellant for trying the disputed question of partition as a title suit.

2.The plaintiff approach the trial Court on the allegation that the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 108/278, Khasra No. 3538, measuring 15-14 bighas, as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 of Phati and Kothi Mandalgarh, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P., is recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and the defendant (appellant herein). She pleaded that defendant No. 1-appellant, Smt. Bhekhalu, filed an application before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kullu for partition. Two other applications seeking partition of the joint land of the parties and other co-sharers were also filed but withdrawn by her.

3.In these proceedings, the plaintiff raised a question of title on the ground that there was a private partition between the parties and suit land bearing 3-0-0 bighas was allotted to the plaintiff as her share and she is in exclusive possession of this land and had spent a sum of more than Rs. one lac on planting of a fruit orchard of apples and other fruit bearing trees which had reached the fruit bearing stage and were generating income. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade instead of adopting the procedure prescribed by law decided the partition proceedings in a summary manner vide Ex.P-1 against which an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before the Collector who vide his order dated 8.3.1991 (Ex.P-2) dismissed it. She pleaded that the order was illegal and without deciding the question of title, partition proceedings could not have not been continued.

4.This claim was contested by defendant No. 1, appellant herein, on the ground that there was no private partition of the suit land which is joint and that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively are legal and in consonance with law.

5.The issue, which was settled, clearly indicates that it is only defendant No. 1, appellant herein, who was resisting the suit while other two defendants did not contest, save and except defendant No. 3, who claimed ownership on this land by adverse possession. Defendant No. 2 admitted the entire claim of the plaintiff. The pleadings of the parties on record also show that contest was by defendant No. 1 only.

6.The trial Court disposed of the crucial and foundation issue namely; “Whether the order dated 5.5.1989 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kullu is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff as alleged ? OPP”, in a very cursory manner holding that :

“No doubt, the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade refused to decide the question of title nor he referred the parties to the Civil Court and thus, the question of title remained undecided and unless it is decided the partition proceedings cannot proceed further. This contention of the learned Counsel does not hold good keeping in view the contents of the order of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, which, clearly shows that he made necessary inquiries by recording the evidence of the parties and deciding the question of title accordingly and thus, while deciding this question of title, he acted as a Civil Court. Once the question of title having been decided by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, the parties cannot re-agitate that question of title in the civil court as has been sought for by the plaintiff