Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 1605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
Giano Devi and others - Appellant
Versus
Bishan Singh and others - Respondent
RSA No. 513 of 2014
Decided on: 5-11-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the suit, and the orders of partition were deemed illegal due to the Revenue Officer's failure to decide the issue in accordance with the law.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 - Section 171, Section 129 - The court discussed the interpretation and application of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, particularly focusing on the jurisdiction of the civil court, the role of the Revenue Officer in determining questions of title, and the legality of orders of partition. The court emphasized that the civil court had jurisdiction as the question of title was raised, and the orders of partition were deemed illegal due to the Revenue Officer's failure to decide the issue in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of co-ownership of land and challenged the defendants' claim as legal heirs of the deceased. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade sanctioned the partition of the land, leading to the plaintiff's objection and subsequent legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the suit, and the orders of partition were illegal due to the Revenue Officer's failure to decide the issue in accordance with the law.
Issues: The core issue was whether the defendants were legal heirs of Mehar Singh or Tultu, leading to the question of jurisdiction of the civil court and the legality of the orders of partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction as the question of title was raised, and the orders of partition were illegal due to the Revenue Officer's failure to decide the issue in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the judgments of both courts below.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.2014 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 30-N/13 of 2014/12.
2. ?Key facts? necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ?plaintiff? for convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he alongwith proforma defendants No. 4 to 13 were only co-owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 15 measuring 12-18 bighas and Khasra No. 62 measuring 2-12 bighas, kita 2 total land measuring 15-10 bighas situated in Mauza Shyampur-Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (hereinafter referred to as the ?suit land? for brevity sake) and the appellants defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' for convenience sake) have no right, title and interest in the property of late Sh. Mehru. Earlier Mangta son of Kharku was owner in possession of the suit land and after his death, suit land was inherited by plaintiff and proforma defendants No.4 to 9 vide mutation No. 208. Mehru son of Mangta was unmarried who died issueless. Defendants in connivance with the revenue staff got recorded themselves as legal heirs of Mehru, whereas they were the legal heirs of Tultu resident of village Sataun. Defendants were not related with the plaintiff and proforma defendants. Defendant Daulat Ram sold his land of village Sataun to Sh. Uday Ram son of Layak Ram, resident of village Poka vide sale deeds dated 13.2.1997 and 26.12.1998. Giano Devi had relinquished her share in favour of defendant Daulat Ram vide release deed dated 12.3.1996. In these documents defendants have been shown son and daughter of Tultu resident of village Sataun. In the year 2002, contesting defendant filed an application for partition before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib. Plaintiff and proforma defendants being illiterate could not engage any counsel and their statements were recorded to partition the land. When the plaintiff and proforma defendants came to know about the land under partition and status of defendants, they engaged the counsel and came to know that defendants were claiming the share of late Sh. Mehru by showing themselves to be the legal heirs of late Sh. Mehru. Plaintiff and proforma defendants filed objections before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib that defendants were not the legal heirs of late Sh. Mehru. However, the objections were rejected in an illegal manner by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib vide order dated 13.10.2003 and 20.10.2003. He sanctioned the partition vide order dated 27.12.2003. Cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff on 12.8.2004 when defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land. Defendant Daulat during the pendency of the suit has alienated his share in the suit land through registered sale deed No. 1416 dated 1.12.2007 to Naresh Kumar son of Ram Darshan, resident of Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. Defendants Giano Devi and Nirmala Devi have alienated their shares in the suit land through registered sale deed No. 1195 dated 11.10.2007 to Rajender Singh son of Gian Chand, resident of Mehal Dhabon, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur. According to the plaintiff, defendants were sons and daughter of late Sh. Tultu son of Nandu, resident of village Sataun, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. The succession of Mehru of his land in favour of defendants and subsequent sale of the suit land by defendants No.1 to 3 to defendants No.13 and 14 through registered sale deeds No.1406 and 1195 dated 1.12.2007 and 11.10.2007 were illegal and fraudulent.
3. Defendants No.2 and 3, namely, Giano Devi and Nirmala Devi have filed written statement. They have taken plea under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to them, Revenue Officer has already decided all the questions involved in the suit
