Suba Singh vs Mohinder Singh and others

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—The parties to this litigation are brothers. On 30th March, 1972 Mohinder Singh filed a suit for joint possession of 1/3rd share of 99 kanals 8 marlas on the pleas that in the revenue records they were shown as joint owners but the defendants denied that position and asserted that they were in possession of separate Khasra numbers in their own right and were not joint owners. Hence this suit. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the land has already been partitioned and a document was executed on 1st August, 1965 in that behalf and, therefore, they were in separate possession and the land was not joint. Both the Courts below found that a reading of document mark ''A'' dated 1st August, 1965 shows that partition was effected by this document and since it was unregistered, therefore, it could not be read in evidence. It was also found that even in the jamabandi Exhibit P-1 for the years 1966-67, the land was described to be jointly owned by all the three brothers in equal shares and therefore, it has been concluded that the land was still joint and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. This is second appeal by one of the defendants.

None has appeared for the appellant. Accordingly I perused the entire record and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, I find that there is no merit what-so-ever in this appeal.

The plaintiff''s case was that document Mark ''A'' was a deed of partition and thus was not admissible for want of registration. A reading of the document itself shows that it was a partition deed, and, therefore, the finding of the Court below that it required registration cannot be assailed.

The defendants'' case was that it was not a partition deed but was a family arrangement. When this document is read with the Jamabandi entries on the record what I find is that all the three brothers are recorded as joint owners in equal shares in the ownership column having joint khata, but in the column of cultivation they are shown to be in possession of separate Khasra numbers. Document mark ''A'' can in the alternative be read as an arrangement between the parties by which little more area was given to one of the co-sharers probably to make up the deficiency in the area for his cultivation only for purposes of cultivation till the Joint Khata was divided by a regular partition in accordance with law. The partition of agricultural land is governed by sections 111 onwards of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. A reading of this chapter shows that even if agricultural land is stated to be partitioned outside the court that partition becomes valid only if the same is brought to the notice of the Revenue authorities and sanction is obtained and only thereafter the Khatas are divided. Otherwise, they continue to be joint owners in the same khata. Therefore, even if it is assumed that document Mark ''A'' was a family settlement that was only an arrangement for the purposes of separate cultivation but not for partition of joint khata by metes and bounds. Unless the joint khata is divided by metes and bounds the co-sharers continue to be joint-owners and that is why in the revenue entries upto date they are shown as co-sharers having equal shares. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the decisions of the two Courts below on either count.

The proper remedy for any of the aggrieved party is to seek partition through the Revenue Court and get his separate Khata as also Khasra numbers.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.