Dharam Pal and Others vs Lachhmia and Others

S.S. Sidhu, I.A.S.

Shri Dharam Pal and Ors. have filed this revision petition against the order dated 10-12-1985 of the Commissioner, Shimla Division.

The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri Lachhmia, Respondent No. 1 made an application to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Solan for partition of land comprised in Khewat Nos. 15/20 and 15/21, measuring 70-2 bighas, situated in village Kanah Bajnal, Tehsil and District Solan. The Petitioners contested this application and raised a preliminary plea that a question of title was involved and the application for partition should, therefore, be disallowed. This plea was rejected by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 7-12-1982. The Petitioners preferred an appeal against this order before the Sub-Divisional Collector, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 30-3-1983. The revision filed by the Petitioners before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, was also dismissed vide his order dated 10-12-1985 Now Shri Dharam Pal and Ors. , Petitioners have filed second revision before us.

We have gone through the record and have also heard the arguments advanced by Shri B.S. Mehta, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri P.C. Sood, Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners have also given an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for producing document regarding ''Khangi Batwara'' by way of additional evidence. Since the Petitioners did not produce this document before the Courts below and it does not bear the signatures of any one, we are not inclined to treat it as a piece of evidence. The Petitioners have simply reiterated the grounds which had already been discussed by the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners drew my attention to the rulings contained in 1932-ILT-61 and 1939-LLT-10. which are on the point that plea of private partition raises a question of title. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also drew my attention to ruling 1906-LLT-24 in which, it has been held that the Revenue Officer may decline to grant the application for partition when the question of title is raised before him. There is no dispute so far these rulings are concerned but the case of the Petitioners is not covered by these rulings. There is no satisfactory evidence, documentary or oral, which supports the contention of the Petitioners regarding private partition. There is presumption of truth to the entries made in the Jamabandis, which reflect joint ownership of the Petitioners and the Respondents. Oral assertion of the Petitioners is not sufficient to prove that private partition had taken place in respect of the suit land. There does not appear to be any irregularity or illegality in the orders of the Revenue Officers below. As such, we find no reason to interfere in their orders Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Order be communicated.