Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Jagtamba & others - Appellant
Versus
Gian Chand (deceased) through LRs - Respondent
RSA No. 285 of 2015
Decided On : 22-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal challenges civil suit maintainability amid consolidation proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. partition suit proceeded despite intervening consolidation allotment order (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. high court quashed consolidation orders for procedural irregularities multiple times (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. defendant argued civil court lacked jurisdiction due to consolidation and land nature (Para 24 , 25) |
| 5. suit land abadi per admissions; preliminary decree finality bars disputes (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. local commissioner's partition report upheld absent valid objections (Para 31 , 32) |
| 7. civil court jurisdiction prevails over consolidation for abadi land (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. appeal dismissed; lower partition decrees affirmed (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2011 (RBT No. 67 of 2013), whereby the decree dated 26.5.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2 Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 36 of 1991, has been affirmed.
2. The Civil Suit for partition of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 20/20, Khasra No. 81, measuring 1 Kanal 9 Marlas and Khata/Khatauni No. 21/21, Khasra No. 80, measuring 1 Kanal, situated in Village Thunial, Tappa Bhumpal, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur (for short the suit land) was filed by Gian Chand against Braham Dass. The appellants herein are the successors of defendant Braham Dass and the respondents herein are the successors of plaintiff Gian Chand. For convenience and clarity, the parties, hereafter shall be referred to as the defendant and plaintiff respectively.
3. The learned trial Court passed the preliminary decree on 7.5.1993 in Civil Suit No. 36 of 1991 filed by the plaintiff.
4. The preliminary decree was assailed by the defendant in appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. Since, the execution or operation of preliminary decree dated 7.5.1993 was not stayed in appeal, the plaintiff had initiated proceedings before the learned trial Court for passing of final decree.
5. The appeal filed by defendant against the preliminary decree was withdrawn.
6. Final decree was passed on 26.5.2011 and hence the instant appeal.
7. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on 24.2.2016, on the following substantial question of law:-
“Whether the civil suit is maintainable in respect of same cause of action where the proceeding has already been initiated with the consolidation authority (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation Act 1971)?”
8. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of appeal are that the plaintiff and the defendant were co-owners of certain land including the suit land. Proceedings under the Consolidation and prevention of fragmentation Act, 1971 (for short, “1971 Act”) were started in the village where joint land of the parties was situated. All other joint land of the parties were ordered to be partitioned vide order dated 28.7.1985 of Consolidation Officer except the suit land, which was kept joint. The order of Consolidation Officer was assailed in appeal by the defendant.
9. The appeal was decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 1.9.1995, whereby the order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.7.1985 was set aside and the entire suit land was allotted to the share of the defendant.
10. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff had instituted Civil Suit No. 36 of 1991 before the learned trial Court on 5.2.1991, seeking the decree of partition with respect to the suit land. The preliminary decree also stood passed in Civil Suit No. 36 of 1991 on 7.5.1993 i.e. much before the date of decision in appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
11. Though, the preliminary decree passed by the learned trial Court on 7
Civil court jurisdiction upheld for partitioning abadi land despite consolidation proceedings; unappealed preliminary decree's finality under CPC Section 97 bars challenges in final decree proceeding....
Civil Courts cannot adjudicate matters concerning partition as per H.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 171, which restricts jurisdiction in partition disputes, asserting that remedy lies within revenue au....
Civil courts lack jurisdiction to challenge partition proceedings by revenue authorities unless a question of title arises or jurisdictional defects are alleged, as prescribed by Section 171 of the H....
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation if the plaintiff is not in possession of the land and fails to meet the conditions for imperfec....
The court clarified the rights of the parties in the subject property and directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to effectuate the preliminary decree for partition, in line with the provisi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a party agrees to the mode and manner of partition before the Commissioner, they cannot resile from the same.
Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over ownership disputes despite statutory provisions barring such jurisdiction in consolidation schemes unless expressly excluded.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, specifically regarding the jurisdiction of the civil cou....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
