- (1.) The civil revision is against the order directing a final decree to be passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court in a partition suit after consideration of the revenue records and the Local Commissioner's report. Out of the two items of the properties that fell to be divided, there is a dispute between the parties with reference to one item in khasra No.42, in the manner of division the trial Court and the appellate Court have provided for the plaintiffs 40/189 share with a frontage of 12' 3'' in khasra No.42. This has been graphically illustrated by a plan which forms part of the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, who is the revision petitioner before this Court, contends that the Courts below have not properly adverted to the revenue entries which show that the property in khasra No.42 has a frontage running to 4 karms (22' 6'') along the rasta and the remaining property is situated in an adjoining khasra No.41. The learned counsel has at a previous hearing before my brother Judge on 24.05.2012 offered to produce revenue records for the khasra Nos.126/42 and 126/41 to contend that the property beyond the 4 karms does not lie within khasra No.126/41. I find the attempt of the petitioners itself is to enlarge the scope of inquiry than how the parties could be permitted to do so at the stage of passing of final decree. A final decree shall always be in terms what is found in the preliminary decree and it cannot avail to a party to contend what he or she has omitted to plead and secure an adjudication at the time when the preliminary decree was passed. The attempt, therefore, of the present petitioner, who is the defendant in suit, is to bring issues of ownership relating to khasra No.126/42 and introduce revenue plans which were not part of the record before the Courts below. The counsel has filed some Annexures along with application in CM No.17161-CII of 2012. I have already observed that this application purports to be in terms of the direction given by the Court. I have also noticed the docket order of the Court on 24.05.2012 was not really in the nature of any direction but it merely records the fact of the petitioner's submission that he wanted to place on record some site plans showing the frontage for khasra No.126/42. I cannot allow this application to be considered for any purpose, for, it brings details which cannot be examined or taken up without appropriate reason to support the same. The revenue records have prima facie value for what they contain but a title to the property is not at all times decided on the basis of revenue records. It is cliched that revenue records are not documents of title but they are evidence of title. When the title of the parties with reference to the land and building was claimed by the plaintiff bidding for her share and the defendant had omitted to contend that a portion of the building and the land enclosed by physical structure were not comprised in a particular khasra number, namely, No.126/42, it ought to have been adjudicated by the Court at the time of passing of the preliminary decree itself. If the Court found it necessary to appoint a Local Commissioner to identify the property which was described in suit and the Local Commissioner found on personal inspection that there was a building and a campus, it not merely the property in khasra No.126/42 but also in khasra No.41, the Court will provide for division in the manner that it found and will not reopen the issues which already concluded on passing of the preliminary decree. It is nobody's case that the third party is taking a claim in relation to a property more than 4 karms adjoining the rasta. The contest has always been with reference to the entire portion of the property measuring 58 feet alongside the rasta and if it turned out that it was not situated in khasra No.126/42 but also in khasra No.126/41, the parties will take the share in the whole property of what the contest was about which the Court already adjudicated at the time of passing of preliminary decree. Therefore, as regards the manner of division suggested by the Court taking the extent of the property as available for partition as 58 feet alongside the rasta, I would hold that the Courts below have correctly considered the issue and there is no error which would require any correction in revision. The contention of the petitioner that the property beyond 4 karms belongs to a third party cannot be a subject of defence at this stage, if he failed to take up such plea at the trial. He shall be barred for taking such a plea at the time of passing of final decree.
(3.) The orders passed by the Courts below are confirmed and the civil revision filed before this Court is dismissed.;