The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in property disputes and the proper remedy for registration mistakes.

Hallifax—The state of things in regard to the proprietorship of the land in dispute here is clearly explained in Dhondba v Vishwanath (1902) 15 C.P.L.R. 143. When two co-proprietors of a village divide up the sir land between them, to bold portions of it separately, they make an imperfect partition of that village; each has a separate patti comprising the sir land he holds in severally, and the whole of the rest of the village forms what is called a shamilat patti. Before the transfer of their present share to the plaintiffs their transferors, held the whole proprietary right in a certain portion of the sir land. This whole right they transferred to the plaintiffs, who therefore became sole landlords of that land, holding it as a separate patti. The fact that at the same time they acquired the transferors' joint interest in the shamilat patti and that shamilat Patti was very much bigger than any separate patti makes no difference whatever, beyond leading to a confusion of ideas.

2. The position then is this the plaintiffs are sole landlords of the occupancy holding in question. The occupancy tenants of that land transferred it for Rs. 921 to the defendants who are strangers and not co sharers in the proprietary interest of that land. This document was by mistake admitted to registration, the mistake arising from the fact that the transferees are co proprietors of other land in the same village. I agree entirely with the ruling of Stanyon, A.J.C. in Ganeshdas v. Shankar,1912 8 NLR 22 that the mention in S. 47 of Act XI of 1893 of the provisions of S. 46 includes the provisions of both sub-Ss. (3) and (5) of that section and does not refer to those of sub S. (3) only, and that S. 47 applies to transfers in which the consideration is over Rs. 100 as well as those of a less value, provided no question of fraud arises, which of course will vitiate any transaction of itself. Here however the registration was obtained by mistake and not by fraud. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was himself under the impression that the defendants were joint landlords of this land, and it is scarcely to be wondered at that the defendants made the same mistake.

3. The proper remedy of the plaintiffs was therefore by application to a Revenue Officer and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. The decree of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the suit was therefore right, though it is based on error. The plaintiffs' application to a Revenue Officer will still be well within time if he can show cause for the application to it of S. 14 of the Limitation Act The appeal is dismissed but in the special circumstances of the case I order that each party shall pay his own costs.

Final Result : Dismissed