- (1.) Vide this order, the above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of by one common order as they have arisen out of the same suit.
(2.) Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was joint property of the parties. Plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the land described in the head note of the plaint along with defendants. Plaintiffs were residing in Canada for the last five years. Defendants No. 1 to 5 by taking undue benefit of their absence filed partition application in the Court of Assistant Collector Grade I (Tehsildar Mansa) which was later transferred to the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade Tehsil Sardulgarh. Plaintiffs also procured sanand takseem dated 17.6.2004. In the absence of the plaintiffs, partition proceedings conducted by the authorities were null and void and were not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 1 to 5 had furnished wrong addresses of the plaintiffs. The partition proceedings had been conducted in a hurried manner. Against order dated 19.9.2003 passed by the Collector Sub Division Mansa. Defendants No. 22 to 26 and 30 and 31 had filed revision petition before Commissioner Faridkot. A compromise was effected between the parties and an adverse order from the Court was taken in the absence of the plaintiff and the partition proceedings were got finalized. Plaintiffs were still in possession of the suit land.
(3.) Defendants No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in their written statements averred that the partition had been sanctioned and entry in the khasra girdawari had been changed in accordance thereto. Answering defendant had been allotted 411 kanals 5 marlas of land. The Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in terms of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act').;