The court held that the decree of the revenue Court in the suit of 1960, based on compromise, was binding upon the parties and could not be set aside by the subsequent decree of the civil Court. The court also emphasized that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to partition the agricultural property.

S.U. KHAN, J.

Petitioners and contesting respondents are descendants of Chauba in the 4th, 5th and 6th generation (pedigree is annexure 1 to the writ petition) Chauba had some agricultural properties situate in two villages Jamurai and Sahewa. The main dispute in between the parties is as to whether all of them had got share in the property in dispute or some of them have got exclusive share in some of the properties as it was acquired by their ancestor Janki who was one of the four sons of Chauba. Contesting respondents 4 to 8 are descendants of Janki while petitioners and respondent Nos. 9 to 15 are descendants of Pusaiya, Mathura and Judi the other three sons of Chauba. If the entire property in dispute is held and belong to Chauba then all the parties will have share therein. However, if it is held that some property was left behind by Chauba and some property was acquired by his son Janki then the property which was self-acquired property of Janki, would devolve only upon his descendants i.e respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

2. In the year 1960 a suit for declaration and partition among all the descendants of Chauba was filed before S.D.O/Assistant Collector and the suit was decreed on 28.10.1960 through compromise in which share of each and every person was determined. It appears that thereafter a civil suit was filed before Munsif, Banda being O.S. No. 168 of 1964 challenging the compromise decree dated 28.10.1960 passed by Assistant Collector. The civil suit was also got decided in terms of compromise. Through compromise, earlier compromise decree of the revenue Court was set-aside and fresh shares were determined. Civil Court decided the suit in terms of compromise on 8.10.1966.

3. After start of consolidation, objections were filed before Consolidation Officer, Khurhand Banda in the form of case No. 2757/1621 and case No. 1553/4044. The objections were decided by Consolidation officer on 28.12.1978. The Consolidation Officer held that civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case as it pertained to agricultural land. The Consolidation Officer (C.O in short) held that the compromise of 1960 entered into in the suit before Asst. Collector was binding upon the parties. The objections were decided by C.O in terms of the compromise decree of 1960 by the revenue Court. Against the orders passed by Consideration Officer, two appeals were filed before SOC (Settlement Officer Consolidation) Banda in the form of appeal No. 111/492, Kundru and Anr. v. Gangwa and Ors. and appeal No. 1127 493, Kundru and Anr. v. Gangwa and Ors. S.O.C allowed the appeals in part through judgment and order dated 20.5.1981. Against the said judgment and order, three revisions were filed being revision No. 239 /381, 240/339 and 241/340. First and third revisions were filed by Kundru and others and second revision by Gangwa and another. D.D.C Banda through judgment and order dated 7.10.2003 dismissed all the revisions and approved the judgment and order passed by S.O.C, hence this writ petition.

4. Both the parties asserted and all the three Courts below held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set-aside the compromise decree of the revenue Court. In this writ petition also both the parties have taken the same stand. In the writ petition, it has been stated repeatedly that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set-aside the decree of revenue Court and to partition the agricultural property. In para 11 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents 4 to 8, it has clearly been stated that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to partition the agricultural holdings. In view of this the Consolidation Officer held that the partition decree passed by the revenue Court in the suit of 1960 was binding upon the parties and shares of all the parties were determined in accordance withi the compromise decree of the revenue Court passed in the suit of 1960.

5. On behalf of the contesting respondents a strange case has been taken. According to them the