The jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in matters within the purview of the Revenue Officer, and the civil court should be hesitant to entertain suits on hyper-technical defects.

A.N. JINDAL, J. - Gurbir Singh, the legal representative of Dalbir Singh and Satpal Singh, plaintiffs have alleged that plaintiff No.2 along with defendants No.3 to 7, are the owners in possession of the land measuring 61 kanals 3 marlas, as fully detailed in the head-note of the plaint and also sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents (herein referred as the defendants) from dispossessing them from the suit land. They also challenged the order of partition passed by Assistant Collector First Grade, Batala dated 14.3.2006 passed under the orders of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 20.10.2003.

2. The defendants contested the suit stating that there was no family partition earlier. Alleged memo of partition dated 22.1.1955 was neither executed nor acted upon. The same being illegal, ultra vires, null and void, is inoperative, ineffective qua their rights. No mutation was sanctioned on the basis of alleged memo of partition. Mutation No.1002 was sanctioned much prior to the memo of partition i.e. in the year 1954. After sanctioning the mutation, Avtar Singh sold 19 kanals 1 marlas of land during his life time in favour of Kulwant Singh son of Gurdial Singh and Gurdial Singh also sold land measuring 22 kanals 19 marlas during his life time. In addition, Avtar Singh also gifted the land measuring 12 kanals 19 marlas in favour of his wife Smt. Harjinder Kaur. In this way, the plaintiffs and defendants Nos 3 to 15 had sold the land more than their due share. Plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had full knowledge about the sanctioning of mutation No.1002 in the year 1954. Gurdial Singh and Avtar Singh never challenged the said mutation during their life time hence neither the plaintiffs nor other defendants are left with no right, title or interest in the suit land and they are not in possession of any part of the said land. Bela Singh had got 12/25th share in the suit land. The orders passed by the learned Commissioner dated 20.10.2003 and that of Assistant Collector First Grade, Batala dated 14.3.2006, are quite legal, operative and remains binding for 20 years. Now after the matter stood finalized up to the court of Financial Commissioner and final partition was ordered by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Batala and the possession has been delivered on the basis of the said warrant of possession issued by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Batala. As such Civil Court jurisdiction is barred.

3. The trial court vide order dated 24.12.2008 directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the land in dispute, whereas, the first appellate court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 3.01.2011 (Annexure P.5).

4. The petitioners have placed reliance on the basis of mutation No.1002 of 1954 and have claimed themselves as co-sharers in the suit land. They have also placed reliance on the memo of partition dated 22.1.1955 which was never acted upon or implemented in the revenue record. As a matter of fact, no actual partition regarding the land in suit took place and the alleged memo of partition was never acted upon in the revenue record; hence on the application filed by the co-sharers, Assistant Collector First Grade ordered partition. Parties continued litigating upto the Court of Commissioner but ultimately Sanad Takshim (order of partition) was issued on 24.4.2006. Partition proceedings remained pending since 5.6.1989 and crossed many hurdles from the court of Assistant Collector First Grade, Batala up to the court of Financial Commissioner, Punjab. Ultimately, Sanad Takshim (order of partition) was also followed by warrant of possession.

5. There is no denying of fact that revenue court could decide the question of title but the revenue court found that there was no debatable or real question of title as such rejected the plea raised by the present petitioners/plaintiffs. Now after having been lost in the revenue courts the pl