Skip to content


Jagan Nath Prasad Vs. Ram NaraIn and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1916)ILR39All115
AppellantJagan Nath Prasad
RespondentRam NaraIn And; Ganga Prasad and ors.
Excerpt:
act (local) no. iii of 1901 (united provinces land revenue act), sections 110, 111 and 112 - partition--question of proprietary title. - .....of it had been allotted to his share and that chat portion could not be partitioned again. he thus raised a question of proprietary title, and the revenue court was competent, under the provisions of section 112 of the land revenue act, either to try the question itself or to refer the parties to the civil court. it elected to adopt the latter course, and directed the plaintiff to bring a suit in the civil court to have the question of title raised by him determined. thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen and the prayer in his plaint is 'that it may be declared that the plaintiff is, by virtue of the mutual partition, separately the owner in possession of an eight anna share in mauza gagauli according to the partition chittis together with all the.....
Judgment:

Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.

1. The plaintiff Jagan Nath is the son of one Sheo Dayal who had a brother named Mata Din. The defendants are the sons and grandsons of Mata Din. The appellant Ram Narain applied to the Revenue Court for a partition of his 1/10th share in the village upon notice being issued to the recorded co-sharers, the plaintiff Jagan Nath raised an objection to the effect that the village had already been privately partitioned, that a definite portion of it had been allotted to his share and that chat portion could not be partitioned again. He thus raised a question of proprietary title, and the Revenue Court was competent, under the provisions of Section 112 of the Land Revenue Act, either to try the question itself or to refer the parties to the Civil Court. It elected to adopt the latter course, and directed the plaintiff to bring a suit in the Civil Court to have the question of title raised by him determined. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen and the prayer in his plaint is 'that it may be declared that the plaintiff is, by virtue of the mutual partition, separately the owner in possession of an eight anna share in mauza Gagauli according to the partition chittis together with all the rights and interests in the cultivated and uncultivated lands, fruit bearing and timber trees and groves containing mango, mahua and other trees, which should not again be divided'. The court below has made a decree in his favour, holding that a partition was effected in 1880, but that it was only what is known as an imperfect partition. In this appeal the first contention raised is that the Revenue Court was not competent to refer the parties to the Civil Court and that the latter court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We are of opinion that this contention has no force. As stated above, a question of proprietary title was raised, and the Revenue Court was fully competent to refer the parties to the Civil Court. As to the merits of the case, the evidence is overwhelming in favour of the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, Partition chittis were prepared and the lands were divided, not as an arrangement for the distribution of profits but as a division of the lands in the village. The oral evidence is supported by the dastur dehi, which is printed on page 2 of the appellant's book. In our opinion the appeal is wholly without force. We accordingly dismiss it with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //