JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present dispute pertains to agricultural land situated at Mauja Saliyar Salhapur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. Upon the demise of Shri Deshraj, the recorded co-owners of the property, as reflected in the revenue records, became his legal heirs namely, petitioner No. 1, Narendra Singh; respondent No. 1, Meghraj; and respondent No. 2, Ravindra Singh. The property continued to be jointly recorded in their names, without any demarcation or partition by metes and bounds.

2. Narendra Singh, claiming that he and Ravindra Singh each had a 1/4th share and that Meghraj had a 1/2 share, filed a partition suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The partition suit in the present case was instituted under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which provides that a bhumidar or asami having a share in a holding may sue for the division of his share. Section 176 confers a statutory right upon co-tenure holders to demand partition by metes and bounds, regardless of whether the property has been physically divided previously. The partition is mandatory if sought, unless prohibited by any specific statutory bar or legal impediment

3. Meghraj, in response, contended that an oral partition had already taken place in 1972, whereby khasra no. 332 fell to his exclusive share and other plots to the share of Deshraj. Despite this claim, it is admitted by Meghraj himself during cross-examination that the land continues to be jointly recorded and that such joint entry had never been objected to.

4. The Trial Court, by preliminary decree dated 23.09.2003, held that khasra no. 332 belonged exclusively to Meghraj based on possession, even in the absence of a counterclaim. The Court, however, failed to adjudicate on the remaining 9 out of 10 issues framed.

5. Narendra Singh preferred ZA Appeal Nos. 03/2003-04 and 11/2003-04 before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, who allowed the appeals by order dated 04.04.2006. The Commissioner observed that the Trial Court's decision was contrary to evidence and had improperly ignored the joint ownership reflected in revenue records. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

6. Meghraj challenged the remand by filing Second Appeals (Nos. 56 and 57 of 2005–06), which were allowed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner on 21.01.2009. The Second Appellate Authority set aside the remand order without framing substantial questions of law.

7. Narendra Singh filed Writ Petitions (WPMS Nos. 251/2009 and 252/2009) under Article 227, challenging the Second Appellate order. While the writ petitions were pending, Narendra Singh executed a registered sale deed on 30.06.2015 in favour of petitioner no.2 (and another purchaser). Ravindra Singh also executed an agreement to sell on 11.02.2020. A civil suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Roorkee.

8. On 12.03.2013, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and remanded the matter back to the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (now Board of Revenue).

9. Review of this order was rejected on 18.10.2019. Thereafter, Meghraj’s legal heirs filed Special Leave Petitions (SLP Nos. 3219–3222 of 2020) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. By judgment dated 21.11.2023, the Supreme Court allowed the SLPs in part, set aside the High Court’s orders dated 12.03.2013 and 18.10.2019, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh adjudication of the writ petitions within six weeks of receipt of the order.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

12. The learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the entire property remains jointly recorded in the names of the parties and has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. They argue that the Trial Court erroneously treated Meghraj’s possession as conclusive ownership of khasra No. 332 without any counterclaim or proo