The presumption of truth in the revenue record regarding joint ownership prevails, establishing that separate possession does not equate to partition without legal acknowledgment under relevant land revenue laws.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, as passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. dated 11.12.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Hamirpur, H.P., dated 23.09.2023, was affirmed whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for partition was decreed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition before learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Hamirpur, H.P, on the ground that the parties are co-owners in joint possession of the suit property comprised in Khata No.26, Khatauni No.44, Khasra No.512, area measuring 00-04-78 hectares and Khatauni No.45, Khasra No.514 area measuring 00-00-40 hectares (total area 00-05-18 hectares) as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012, situated at Mohal Matahni, P.O. Daruni Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. It was averred in the plaint that the suit property is joint and has not yet been partitioned through due process of law. The share of the plaintiff and defendant is equal i.e. 00-05-18/2 hectares. There are houses of the parties in the suit land. The parties had earlier filed a partition petition in the Revenue Court of Tehsildar, Hamirpur, H.P., but the same was disallowed on the ground that the suit land is build up and Gair Mumkin Abadi on the spot. Therefore, its partition is not within the jurisdiction of the revenue authority. The plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit property and possession of his share. Therefore, it was prayed that preliminary decree for partition of suit property be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with further prayer that for effecting partition, Court Commissioner may be appointed in terms of preliminary decree.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel, cause of action, non-joinder, jurisdiction etc. On merits, it was averred that the suit property is joint in the revenue record and the defendant has equal share with the plaintiff and there are houses of the parties. However, it was averred that the rest of the averments are totally incorrect and the parties are in separate possession as per family arrangement since long and the plaintiff has acquired larger share in different khatas as per the family arrangement. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit as filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

4. Learned trial Court framed on 19.12.2018 in the following manner:

“1. Whether the parties are co-sharer in the suit land, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged ? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is without jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD.

7. Relief.”

5. Learned trial Court directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and finally, vide its judgment and decree dated 23.09.2023, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and preliminary decree for possession by way of partition of the property over the land comprised in Khata No.26, Khatauni No.44, Khasra No.512 area measuring 00-04-78 hectares and Khatauni No.45, Khasra No.514 area measuring 00-00-40 hectares (total area 00-05-18 hectares) situated at Mohal Matahni, P