The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of the Civil Court regarding the oral partition and exclusive possession of specific areas of the land by each brother were upheld, and the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Assistant Collector were found to be in strict conformity with these findings.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Has the Financial Commissioner erred in accepting the claim of respondents No. 2 to 4 that the family property had been partitioned through a family settlement ? This is the short question. A few facts.

2. Santu had four sons - Arjan Singh, Sadhu Singh, Sarwan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. The first of these viz. Arjan Singh filed a petition in or about the year 1981 for partition of the land measuring 149 kanals 19 marlas. The remaining three brothers raised an objection. They pointed out that the land had already been partitioned through a family settlement. The Assistant Collector declined to proceed with the petition for partition. He directed Arjan Singh to approach the Civil Court. He did. Civil Suit No. 537 of 1982 was instituted on May 13, 1982. The trial Court framed various issues including :

(1) Whether a family partition took place between the parties regarding the land in dispute and 32 kanals 8 marlas of land as described in para No. 1 of the written statement had fallen to the share of the plaintiff ? OPD

(2) If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether the plaintiff is joint owner of the land in dispute ? OPP.

3. After considering of the matter the trial Court recorded the following conclusion in para 15 of its judgment :

"After the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that an oral partition took place between them about 18-19 years back, the onus shifted upon him to prove that the land in dispute still continued to be held by them jointly. He has not been able to produce any such evidence which may inspire this Court that this land is being held by them jointly. The defendants have been able to produce evidence to the effect that they are exclusively holding separate portions, the khasra numbers of which they have deposed in their examinations as owners since the time of partition and that evidence has found favour with this court. .....This partition was always relied upon and acted upon,........ the partition ......in which separate and different portions of the land in dispute, plots and houses fall to their shares. In this partition 32 kanals 8 marlas of land had fallen to the share of the plaintiff."

4. As a result of the above, issue No. 1 was decided against Arjan Singh, the present petitioner (now represented through his Legal Representatives). Issue No. 2 was found to be redundant. Arjan Singh appealed. The Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissed this appeal vide judgment dated November 4, 1985. The decree passed by the Civil Court was thereafter challenged before the High Court and the Apex Court. The Regular Second Appeal and the Special Leave Petition were, admittedly, dismissed. Thus, the finding of the trial Court that there was an oral partition and that it had been acted upon became final.

5. In the meantime, the matter was placed before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Khanna. Vide his order dated June 30, 1986 he sanctioned the mutation of the land in favour of the four brothers in accordance with the findings of the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the order, Arjan Singh, the present petitioner, filed an appeal. The Collector accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector. Respondents No. 2 to 4 appealed against the order of the Collector. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal. They filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The revision petition having been accepted, the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, was upheld. Aggrieved by this order, Arjan Singh, the petitioner, approached this court through the present writ petition. On account of his death, the legal representatives were brought on record.

6. The petitioners pray that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P6 and P3 respectively, be set aside.

7. The respondents contest this claim. They have filed a detailed written statement controverting the averments