The main legal point established is that the civil court has jurisdiction to partition agricultural land converted into residential plots and houses, but cannot partition land assessed to land revenue.

M.L.Singhal, J.

1. Surjeet Singh and others instituted suit for partition by metes and bounds of plot measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint. They claimed that they be put in possession of specific portion, which became allotted to them in partition proceedings. They further sought injunction against Sampuran Singh and others from alienating any specific portion thereof and in excess of their share and also sought injunction against them restraining them from dispossessing them from any portion by way of raising construction. It was alleged in the plaint that the land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas was joint of the parties and no partition of any kind had taken place between them. Plaintiffs have 930/3095 share. It was further alleged that AC 2nd Grade had kept the suit land as joint being gair mumkin in partition proceedings.

2. Defendants No. 2 to 7 contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that they are not owners nor in possession of any portion of the suit land. They have moved an application before AC 2nd Grade, Dabwali titled Sukhdev Singh etc. v. Sampuran Singh etc. for partition of the agricultural land jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit and the plaintiffs themselves had stated in part 3 of additional objection of "Naksha Be" filed on 29.5.93 before the AC 2nd Grade Dabwali that they had already excess share of gair mumkin land and they were not in possession of gair mumkin land and they were also not entitled to the gair mumkin land. The said partition proceedings are still pending. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had no concern or connection whatsoever with the gair mumkin land which is the suit land. Sampuran Singh defendant was owner in possession of 1 kanal. Sukhdev Singh etc. defendants 2 to 5 were owners in possession in equal share of 2K2M in equal share. They (Sukhdev Singh etc defendants 2 to 7) and Sampuran Singh defendant constructed the suit land and were in possession at the spot. Revenue record showing plaintiffs to be co-sharers in the suit land was wrong, against law, facts and the rights of defendants 2 to 7 and was liable to be ignored.

3. Tej Singh etc. defendants No. 1 and 8 to 12 contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that they are not co-sharers. It was further urged that Sampuran Singh was in possession of specific portion measuring 1 kanal and had raised construction. If any partition was ordered. Sampuran Singh was entitled to remain in possession of that portion over which he had raised construction. Defendants 8 to 10, 11 and 12 were also entitled to separate possession according to their respective shares. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific portion of their share in the suit land in the partition by metes and bounds? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating specific portion of the suit land more than their share? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolous and deserves dismissal? OPD

6. Whether the defendant is entitled for special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD

7. Relief.

Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dabwali decreed the plaintiffs suit preliminarily for partition to the effect that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific portion of the suit land equivalent to 930/3095 shares thereof by way of partition by metes and bounds and defendants were restrained from alienating the suit land or any portion thereof or interfering therein by way of raising construction or in any manner till actual partition of the suit land, by decree of permanent injunction in view of his findings that plaintiffs are co-sharers with the defendant