The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to settle the question of title before proceeding with partition proceedings, as mandated by Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

K.S. Janjua, F.C. - The facts in brief of this revision petition filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 are that Chanan Kaur filed an application (15.5.1993) before AC-1, Kapurthala for partition of joint land measuring 70 K-16M of her father Vir Singh, situated in village Sheikupur, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala Baldev Singh etc. respondent No. 4-6 submitted a memorandum of partition dated 28.9.1973 and pleaded before AC-1 that family partition had already been effected and acted upon by the co-sharers. AC-1 vide his order dated 11.3.94 directed the parties to get the question of title decided from the competent civil Court first. Aggrieved by this order Chanan Kaur went in appeal before the Collector, Kapurthala which was accepted and case was remanded to AC-1 for giving full opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and adduce evidence (12.5.95). This order was assailed by the respondents before the Addl. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar who while accepting the appeal (20.6.2000) observed that question of title exists between the parties and required determination through adjudication by the competent civil Court. Hence this revision petition.

2. Sh. T.P. Singh Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and pleaded that before recording his findings by AC-1 that question of title is involved, no evidences of parties were recorded whereas para 18.2 and 18.3 of the Punjab Land Record Manual legally enjoins upon AC-1 to make an investigation before entertaining the application for partition. Secondly as per paragraphs 18.1 of the said Manual, if there is private partition the same is required to be recorded in revenue record but in this case alleged private parition has not been reflected in revenue record so it has no legal significance and it can not be inferred that question of title is involved. Thirdly the memo of partition dated 28.9.1973 is fictitious document and thumb impression of the petitioner was forged. Moreover, there is no explanation as to why the alleged private partition was not acted upon. As per copies of Jamabandi for the years 1991-92, 1996-97 all the parties have joint possession. The counsel urged to set aside the orders of AC-1 (11.3.94) and Addl. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division (20.6.2000) and to accept the revision petition.

3. By refuting the above arguments Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, counsel for the respondents submitted that Baldev Singh etc. respondents raised preliminary objections that question of title is involved in the matter because family partition had taken place in the year 1972 which was subsequently reduced in the memorandum of partition on 28.9.1973 keeping in view the entries of jamabandi and khasra girdawari. This memo was duly singed by their father Ujjagar Singh and other co-sharers. The counsel further contended that full opportunity was given to the parties and respondents produced a copy of memorandum, copies of Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris showing possession of land but the petitioner could say nothing in rebuttal except her bald statement. After considering the material brought on record and hearing the parties, AC-1 Kapurthala rightly directed the parties to get the question of title settled from the competent civil Court, taking recourse to provisions contained in Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The counsel averred that the pleading that partition can only be effected through registered deed is not supported by law because memorandum of partition was prepared after taking into consideration of entries of revenue record which are strictly in consence with the recitals in family settlement, it cannot be said that family partition was not supported by the revenue record. In support of the point the counsel referred the ruling of Ld. F.C. Punjab 1985-AILLR- 416. The counsel urged that in this case question of title is involved which has to be settled before proceeding further and the revenue office after hearing