The onus is on the party asserting oral partition to establish it, and possession alone does not confer ownership without proper documentation and adjudication.

Augustine George Masih, J.

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 20.01.2015 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, whereby, orders dated 17.09.2014 and 29.08.2012 (Annexures P-12 and P-10) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot - respondent No.2 and order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sub Division Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda - respondent No.3 and order dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Gradecum-Tehsildar, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda - respondent No.4, were upheld and partition proceedings were allowed to continue, on the ground that the same are illegal, arbitrary, null and void. Directions are also sought in the nature of mandamus to dismiss the partition proceedings initiated by respondents No.5 to 10.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the year 1963, rather on 28.07.1963, a family private partition had taken place. On the basis of the said partition, possession of the land was exchanged between the brothers. This, he asserts on the basis of the khasra girdawari(s) of village Chathewla, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda for the years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 (Annesure P-2). Initially, he refers to the jamabandi for the year 1964-65 (Annexure P-1) to contend that the earlier jamabandi indicates that all the joint holders were enjoying the possession of the land as owners. Referring to further jamabandi for the year 1969-70, counsel has further asserted that the family private partition, which had taken place, had actually been acted upon on the ground with the partition of the land and exchange of possession. He has referred to the site plan placed on record by the petitioners depicting the location of the land and assigning reasons as to why the petitioners were given more land as compared to the other brothers in the partition. He states that there was no passage given for khasra No.781, which was given to him in the partition, whereas, khasra Nos.782, 783 and 784 were on the sanctioned passage and therefore, there being no connectivity with this land and since the adjacent land i.e. khasra No.775 was exclusive ownership of the petitioners, he had agreed for the said arrangement. Referring to Annexure P-15 depicting the canals for irrigation, he further asserts that the other reason, as to why the petitioners were given more land, was that the canal which supplied water to the private respondents, passes through the land of the petitioners, which share was given to them. He, thus, contends that because of the inferior quality of land and for the reason that the canal had to go through the land of the petitioners, which also utilized some land, the petitioners were granted more land as compared to the other brothers. Reference has also been made to the warabandis (Annexure P-4 and P-5) to substantiate this contention. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside as a family private partition had actually been taken place between the brothers, which has been acted upon on the ground as well.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Arjan Singh (deceased) through LRs Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Appeal-II, Punjab, (2001) 4 RCR(Civ) 42, wherein, it has been observed that the party denying the oral family partition should approach the Civil Court for proving it otherwise.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 10 has asserted that firstly, there has been no family partition at all, rather in the reply to the application for partition, the stand which has been taken by the petitioners is that there was an oral partition, which was later on recorded in the written form, which document has never seen the light of the day. He further contends that noth