Skip to content


Jadunandan Lal Vs. Daulat Rai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.640
AppellantJadunandan Lal
RespondentDaulat Rai and ors.
Excerpt:
u.p. land revenue act (iii of 1901), sections 111 and 112 - recorded co-sharer--proprietary question--objection--appeal--jurisdiction. - .....in the application for partition, the plaintiffs-respondents, who are the holders of a seven-anna share out of eight-annas in patti no. 1, asked for partition of their shares in the seven-anna share inter se. the objector, jadunandan lal, is a recorded co-sharer in respect of a one-anna share in the same patti as a mortgagor. his objections were two-fold, first, in respect of a one-anna share out of the seven-annas held by the plaintiffs, which he alleged the plaintiffs had bought from one musammat rup kali. in respect of this share, his objection was that musammat rup kali as a hindu widow had no right to transfer, that he was now the owner of that share and that he intended to bring a suit to recover it. as he was not a recorded co-sharer in respect of that share, he had no right.....
Judgment:

Henry Griffin, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an application for partition by the Revenue Court. The appellant, Jadunandan Lal, filed objections. In the application for partition, the plaintiffs-respondents, who are the holders of a seven-anna share out of eight-annas in patti No. 1, asked for partition of their shares in the seven-anna share inter se. The objector, Jadunandan Lal, is a recorded co-sharer in respect of a one-anna share in the same patti as a mortgagor. His objections were two-fold, first, in respect of a one-anna share out of the seven-annas held by the plaintiffs, which he alleged the plaintiffs had bought from one Musammat Rup Kali. In respect of this share, his objection was that Musammat Rup Kali as a Hindu widow had no right to transfer, that he was now the owner of that share and that he intended to bring a suit to recover it. As he was not a recorded co-sharer in respect of that share, he had no right to object to its partition and the Courts below have rightly dismissed the appellants' objection on this point. His second objection was as regards three groves Nos. 100, 251 and 133. The plaintiffs claim groves Nos. 100 and 251 as their exclusive property and with respect to No. 133, they say that the objector Jadunandan Lal is entitled to one half. The objector alleges that all the three groves were his exclusive property. The Assistant Collector in an order which it is difficult to understand dismissed the objection. The objector appealed to the District Judge, who held that no appeal lay to him under Section 112 of the Land Revenue Act because the appellant was not a recorded co-sharer. The learned District Judge was apparently under a misapprehension. The finding of the Court of first instance that the objector is not a recorded co-sharer is with respect to the one-anna share, which the plaintiffs have acquired from Musammat Rup Kali. The learned District Judge has not gone into the question whether the three groves Nos. 100, 25 L and 133 are the property of the plaintiffs or of the defendants or whether they are jointly entitled to them. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that as the objector is not a recorded co-sharer in the seven-anna share, which is the subject of partition, the objector is not entitled to raise the question of his proprietary title to these groves. He did raise an objection and his objection was entertained by the Court of first instance. The objector is a recorded co-sharer in the eight-annas patti out of which the plaintiffs are now seeking an imperfect partition in respect of seven-anna share. The objection put in by the objector raises a question of proprietary title in respect of the three groves set out above. It has still to be decided to which sub-division of the patti these groves appertain. It appears to me that he is entitled to have his objection considered by the lower Appellate Court, which has dismissed his appeal upon insufficient grounds. I allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remand the case for decision to the lower Appellate Court under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, with directions to re-admit it under its original number and dispose of it according to law. Costs of this appeal including fees on the higher scale will be the costs in the cause.


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