IMPORTANT POINT
Land Revenue – Partition – Banjar Jadid – Land which is part of estate even though non-agricultural land; jurisdiction of civil court will be barred.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Appellant-defendant No.1 is aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby the suit instituted at the instance of the respondent-plaintiffs qua partition has been decreed, though vis-a-vis relief of declaration for setting-aside the revenue entries and Rapat Roznamcha No.313 dated 26.3.1984 has been dismissed being barred by law of limitation.

2. Mr. Puneet Bali, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ranjit Saini, representing appellant-defendant No.1, in support of the grounds of appeal, has raised the following manifold arguments:-

(1) Khewat No.178 consists of 103 kanals 7 marlas, whereas the partition has been sought of only 4 kanals 14 marlas of land. In fact, Basanti Devi, vide sale deed dated 7.5.1968, had sold land measuring 4 kanals 14 marlas bearing Khewat No.76, Khatoni No.93, 94 and 95, Khasra No.184//7/2 (3-12), 8/1(1-2) out of total land measuring 127 kanals 7 marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 1962-63, i.e., 1/6th share out of 21 kanals 4 marlas, i.e., 94/424 share which comes to 4 kanals 14 marlas and thereafter to Banwari Lal, father of appellant-defendant No.1 and had put him into specific possession of Khasra No.184//7/2 (3-12), 8/1(1-2);

(2) The plaintiffs are none else but the grand sons of Basanti Devi, who had inherited the remaining property of their grand mother. Father of appellant-defendant No.1 remained in possession of the aforementioned property till his death and thereafter appellant-defendant No.1 came into possession of the same pursuant to the decree dated 20.10.1987 passed in civil suit titled as “Mohan Lal Versus Sat Rup;

(3) Neither Basanti Devi nor L.Rs challenged the entries, much less possession of the defendant during his life time. The suit had been filed in the month of July, 2001 asserting therein that the entries were illegal and wrong on the premise that Rapat Roznamcha No.313 dated 26.3.1982 was illegal, null and void as the aforementioned entry was got done by Banwari Lal in connivance with the revenue officials by recording him as a co-sharer. In fact, the aforementioned entries were without notice and consent of the other co-sharers;

(4) The entries in the jamabandies for the years 1983-84, 1988-89, 1993-94 and 1998-99 are based on wrong entries;

(5) The trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit, but the Lower Appellate Court vis-a-vis the relief qua revenue record and Rapat Roznamcha dismissed the suit, but granted partition. In fact, the suit was hit by partial partition;

(6) During the pendency of the matter, the plaintiffs had sold some piece of land vide sale deed dated 14.11.2006 to plaintiff No.5, who is none else but an Advocate. It is plaintiff No.5 who had filed the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court;

(7) The entire khewat is consisting of 103 kanals 7 malas and since the land agreed to be sold is Banjar Jadid, therefore, cannot be said to be non-agricultural and, therefore, the Civil Court as per the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short “1887 Act”) did not have the jurisdiction and the suit was hit by law of limitation;

(8) The Lower Appellate Court has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in Khushal Singh and others Versus Gurdip Singh and others, 1987 PLJ 369, which has been held to be no longer good law by the Division Bench of this Court in Fauja Singh Versus Pritam Singh, 1993(2) RRR 69;

(9) The question, which arises for consideration, is whether as per the averments of the plaintiffs, the land which is Banjar Jadid would be out of the realm of provisions of Section 111 of 1987 Act seeking partition for agricultural land or not or whether the expression used in Section 158 of 1987 Act regarding the estate would include the entire chunk of land situated in the village including the joint khata. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the findings rend