Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2581 = 1962 PLD 29
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Revision No. 22 of 1961, decided on 20th April, 1962.
Presented By: Abdul Hamid Khan and Muhammad Sharif, JJ
Sayed Tassadag Hussain Shah for Petitioners.   Sh. Abdul Hamid for
Respondent 1.  
Respondent No. 2 in person.

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners  

VERSUS

  KHALID MUZAFFAR AND OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)

Section: Ss. 117 & 158

(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), Ss. 117 & 158 Question of title pure and simple-Suit triable by Civil Court and not Revenue Court.   A I R 1936 Lah. 589 ref.   (b) Partition-Suit for partition of land-Plaintiff merely seeking to separate his share from that of defendant-Value of plaintiff's share and not of entire land will determine forum of suit.   P L D 1960 Dacca 789 rel.    JUDGMENT   ABDUL HAMID KHAN, J.---This .is a revision petition against the judgment of the District Judge, Muzaffarabad, dated 15-7-1961. In this judgment, finding was given by the learned District Judge on two issues, namely :-   Whether the suit is cognizable by a Revenue Court ? (O P D)   In case issue No. 4 is not proved, whether the suit is triable by the Court of aSub-Judge ? (O P D)   On issue No. 4 finding of the District Judge is that the suit is not triable by a Revenue Court. The finding on issue No. 5 is that the suit is not triable by a Sub-Judge, as the land revenue of the land, the subject-matter of the suit, is Rs. 192-6-0 and it 30 times comes to Rs. 5,771-4-0, whereas the Sub-Judge's jurisdiction to hear cases is upto the value of Rs. 5,000.   It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that since the suit is a suit for partition, it is cognizable by a Revenue Court, in view of the provisions of section 158 of the Land Revenue Act. It was further argued that even if there was a question of title involved, still the suit would be cognizable by a Revenue Court in view of the provisions of section 117, Punjab Land Revenue Act. In reply, it was stated that since the question of title was involved in the case and no application for partition had been made to the Revenue Court, it was open to the plaintiff to file this suit in a Civil Court. A I R 1936 Lah. 589 has been referred to in this connection.   We have carefully read sections 117 and 158 of the Land Revenue Act and what we understand after reading these two sections is that when there is a question of title involved in any partition proceedings, the Revenue Court may decline to grant the application for partition until the question of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register