Harnam Kaur vs Preeto alias Pritam Kaur

S.R. Bunger, F.C.

The present is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 29th October, 1991, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, in a case of partition of jointagricultural land.

The brief facts of this case are, that, Preeto alias Pritam Kaur daughter of Harnam Kaur, had moved an application dated 16.5.1986, before the TehsildarcumAssistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, for the separation of her 2/5 share, out of jointland measuring 80 Kanals 0 Marla, situate at village Gujjar, Tehsil and District Faridkot, as per the entry recorded in the jamabandi for the year 198081. It was stated in the application by Preeto alias Pritam Kaur, that, she had acquired this share in the jointproperty through a Civil Court decree dated 6.10.1971, passed by the SubJudge, Ist Class, Faridkot. In the copy of Jamabandi for the year 198081, which has been placed on the record, it is stated, that, mutation No. 1081, regarding the change of ownership in favour of Preeto stands sanctioned in accordance with the order dated 21.12.1979, passed by the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, had initiated the necessary action, on the application for partition, and, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents in the application, alleging the involvement of question of title in the land to be partitioned, was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, vide his order dated 3.5.1988. Against this order, Harnam Kaur had filed an appeal before the Collector SubDivision, Faridkot, which was rejected as per Collector''s order dated 30.11.1988. Still aggrieved by this order, Harnam Kaur, had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which was also rejected vide Commissioner''s order dated 29.10.1991. The present second revision petition is directed against this order.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard; as none came present on behalf of the respondent. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that, the present revision petition has absolutely no merit, and the same deserves to be rejected. All the three Revenue Officers below, in their concurrent findings had rightly come to the conclusion, that, no ''question of title'' was involved in the land to be partitioned; and, I fully subscribe to the conclusions drawn by these Officers. It appears, that, the objection alleging that a ''question of title'' was involved in the land to be partitioned, was raised just for the sake of objection, with a view to prolong the litigation, for the reasons best known to the petitioners only. Apparently, the objection being without any substance, was rightly rejected by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. The petitioners appear to be simply indulging in vexatious and frivolous litigation, which is reprehensible; because as revealed from the record, Smt. Preeto alias Pritam Kaur, had acquired her right in the jointland through a protracted litigation, which had gone right up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court; and her title was undisputed being fully settled.

However, I have a strong suspicion, that, on behalf of Smt. Harnam Kaur, someone has tried to play smart in this case, with a hoodwinking approach, just to keep this case alive and pending; and the Revision Petition was neither filed by Harnam Kaur herself nor with her authority or consent. The present revision petition is purported to have been filed by Harnam Kaur through her General AttorneyGurmej Singh, but surprisingly, no Powerof Attorney has been brought on the record. It is equally surprising, that, although the revision petition has been filed by Gurmej Singh as General Attorney, but the ''Wakalat Nama'' placed on the record, which is undated, has been shown to have been thumbmarked by Harnam Kaur herself. This is quite intriguing; and to me it appears, that somebody interested in this case has filed this sham revision petition in the name of Harnam Kaur, by assuming a role, with the active support, if not connivance, of Shri S.M.L. Arora, Advocate. There is no PowerofAttorney in favour of Gurmej Singh on the record, and the thumbimpression on the ''Wakalat Nama'' filed by Sh. S.M.L. Arora, Advocate, purporting to be that of Harnam Kaur, appears to be bogus. Had the revision petition been filed by the General Attorney of Harnam Kaur, then, the ''Wakalat Nama'' should have been signed or thumbmarked by the General Attorney, Gurmej Singh, and, there would have been no question of Harnam Kaur, signing or thumbmarking the ''Wakalat Nama''. The given circumstances are suggestive of the fact, that, there is something fishy.

Further, Sh. S.M.L. Arora, Advocate, had moved an application, dated 11.9.1996, stating that Harnam Kaur had died on 8.1.1994 and her legal heirs be allowed to be brought on the record, and to transposit them (under Order XXIII, Rule 1A of CPC) from respondent No. 2 and 3, as petitioners. In this regard, it is stated that it is a settled proposition of law, that, to the partition proceedings under Chapter IX of the Act ibid, Civil Procedure Code is not applicable; as such, ''transposition'' was not permissible, because status of ''Applicant for partition'' and the ''RespondentCosharers'' is not comparable with ''Plaintiff'' and ''Defendants'' respectively. Hypothetically speaking, even if it is assumed that Civil Procedure Code was applicable, even then, the case was not covered under its provisions; because the petition was neither withdrawn nor abandoned by the petitioner; but it had abated, with the death of Harnam Kaur, as the alleged PowerofAttorney in favour of Gurmej Singh had automatically expired and rendered inconsequential, and the application for bringing the Legal Representatives of Harnam Kaur on the record, was not made within the time permitted by law. Although Harnam Kaur had died on 8.1.1994, but this fact was never brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer uptill 11.9.1996. This implies that Shri Arora Advocate, had continued to represent the petitioner without any authority with effect from 8.1.1994 onwards, unauthorisedly and illegally. As such, for all practical purposes, petition had abated and rendered infructuous.

Further, respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Harbans Singh son of Veero daughter of Harnam Kaur and Veero daughter of Harnam Kaur respectively, were ordered to be proceeded against exparte, as per the order of my learned predecessor dated 12.8.1992. The application dated 11.9.1996, moved by Sh. S.M.L. Arora, Advocate, was not in order, because, as he was representing the petitioner only, so, as required under Order 1, Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code, the application for transposition should have been made by the respondents themselves; and Sh. Arora, had no authority to move this application for the said purpose. As the respondents No. 2 and 3 had already been ordered to be proceeded against exparte, so, they could not be transposed as petitioners, without their first getting the ex parte order passed against them set aside.

Along with the application dated 11.9.1996, Sh. S.M.L. Arora, Advocate, had also moved another application suggesting the ''Amended Heading'' of the petition, stating the names of Veero; Harbans Singh; Gurmej Singh; Balwinder Singh and Karaj Singh sons of Gurmej Singh; as legal heirs of Harnam Kaur, as petitioners, on the basis of the registered Will dated 17.7.92, allegedly executed by Harnam Kaur. Somehow, the application dated 11.9.1996, was granted by my learned predecessor, as per his order dated 11.12.1996, and with this, the new petitioners had come on the record and Sh. S.M.L. Arora, Advocate, was required to file a new ''Wakalat Nama'' on behalf of the new petitioners, but surprisingly, the ''Wakalat Nama'' placed on the record, which is dated 11.9.96, has been signed by one "Gurnam Singh". Who is this Gurnam Singh, is not clear from the record at all. This again smacks of some hanky panky.

Still further, Veero; Harbans Singh; Gurmej Singh; Balwinder Singh and Karaj Singh, have been sought to be brought on the record, as legal heirs of Harnam Kaur, on the basis of the registered Will dated 17.7.1992, which, I am afraid, cannot be allowed on the basis of the Will, in view of the fact that the deceased Harnam Kaur was survived by her daughters, who had not given any consent to the Will as valid and genuine. Thus, in the eyes of law, only the natural heirs of the deceased Harnam Kaur could be brought on the record as her legal representatives and not the legatees of the nonestablished Will. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it would be reasonable to conclude that no proper revision petition was filed and pursued by any competent person against the order dated 29.10.1991, and the revision petition dated 13.1.1992, deserves to be rejected as totally incompetent and without merit.

However, I am constrained to observe that the overall conduct and demeanour of Shri S.M.L. Arora, Advocate in this case smacks of his professional misconduct, which cannot be appreciated.

As the order dated 3.5.1988, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, was an interim order, so against this, only a revision petition was competent and no appeal could lie. In view of this, the order dated 30.11.1988, passed by the Collector, Faridkot, deserves to be treated as incompetent and redundant. In the given situation, the revision petition before the Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, needs to be treated as revision petition against the order dated 3.5.1988, passed by the Tehsildar cumAssistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot.

In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is rejected; and the case is remanded to the TehsildarcumAssistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, for further partition proceedings in this case. The A.C.Ist Grade, is directed to resume the partition proceedings from the stage where his predecessor had left it. The parties are directed to appear before the TehsildarcumAssistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, on 24.6.1998.

Revision petition rejected.