2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
DUGLA DECEASED THROUGH LR ROBEL SINGH AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
CHAMAN LAL DECEASED THROUGH LR aNKUR kUMAR AND OTHERS – Respondent
RSA/423/2002

Civil courts lack jurisdiction over partition proceedings under Section 171 of the HP Land Revenue Act, unless the issue is a question of title. Service of summons in such proceedings is governed by Section 21 of the HP Land Revenue Act, not Order V of the CPC.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 - Sections 171(2)(xvii), 171(2)(xviii) and 21 - Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts - A Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any claim for the partition of an estate, holding, or tenancy, or any question connected with or arising out of proceedings for partition, provided it is not a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought - Once partition is effected by competent revenue authorities, the claim cannot be re-agitated before a Civil Court as it is barred by the statutory provisions and the principle of constructive res judicata. (Paras 23-28)

(B) Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 - Section 21 - Service of summons - The mode of service of summons in partition proceedings pending before a Revenue Officer is governed by Section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and not by Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - An official act of service by a public official is presumed to be regular under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies upon the party challenging the service. (Paras 31-33)

(C) Jurisdiction - If a court concludes that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, it cannot deal with the merits of the case and must return the plaint. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:
A suit was filed seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of land based on a sale deed, along with a permanent prohibitory injunction. The subject land had already been partitioned by revenue authorities. The plaintiff contended that the revenue entries were incorrect and that the service of summons during the partition proceedings was invalid, thereby challenging the legality of the partition.

Findings of Court:
The suit was barred by Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. The service of summons was held to be valid as it complied with Section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, and the presumption of regularity of official acts applied to the process server's report.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and whether the validity of service of summons in partition proceedings is determined by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is specifically excluded in matters relating to partition proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, except where a question of title is involved. Since the partition had already been carried out by the revenue authorities, the civil suit was barred. Furthermore, because partition proceedings are administrative/revenue-based, the special provisions of Section 21 of the Land Revenue Act regarding the service of summons prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, once the lack of jurisdiction was established, the court could not adjudicate on the merits of the case, including limitation and the validity of title documents.

Result: Appeal allowed, judgment and decree of lower courts set aside, and plaint ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court.