SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS Regular Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal.
(2.) ON 12.2.1975, appellant Hari Singh filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 17.9.1973 passed by Tehsildar, Kaithal, partitioning the land in question under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was illegal, without jurisdiction and null and void. Further declaration was sought that the impugned order was based upon mis-representation of facts. The appellant also prayed for possession of the land in question. In the plaint, it has been alleged by the plaintiff that he had purchased 16 Kanals of land vide registered sale deed dated 28.5.1963 from Devi Dial (defendant No. 1), who was a co-sharer in Khewat No. 250, which was compromising 558 Kanals 3 Marlas of land, and the possession of the land purchased was delivered to the plaintiff. Thus, he became owner in possession of the said land. It has been further alleged that subsequently, one of the co-sharers, namely Hari Singh son of Datu (defendant No. 3) filed an application for partition before the revenue Court under the provisions of the Act. In those partition proceedings, the plaintiff was illegally proceeded ex-parte, even though he was not properly served. Subsequently, in the order of final partition dated 17.9.1973, killa No. 1/1 out of the land purchased by the plaintiff was allotted to said defendant No. 3. The order of final partition was challenged in the suit on the grounds that no notice according to law was served upon the plaintiff and the procedure followed by the revenue Court was unknown to law, therefore, the order dated 27.2.1969, vide which the appellant was proceeded ex-parte and the final order of partition dated 17.9.1993 are null and void.
(3.) THE suit was contested by defendants No. 2, 3 and 8. It was pleaded that the land purchased by the plaintiff from a co-sharer was part of khewat No. 250 which was comprising 581 Kanal 1 Marla of land. No specific possession was delivered by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff nor it could have been delivered as defendant No. 1 was not in possession of any specific killa number. He was only a joint owner and was not competent to transfer the specific killa number of the joint khewat. Regarding partition, it was stated that the partition application filed by defendant No. 3 was legally decided, due notice was served upon the petitioner and when he refused to accept service including the substituted service, he did not appear, he was proceeded ex-parte. Ultimately, the final order of partition was passed by the revenue Court, which has the jurisdiction under the Act. It is further contended that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under Section 158(2) of the Act.;