BEAS SINGH Vs. BALDEO PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants first party being defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in a suit brought by the plaintiffs to set aside a Collectorate partition. The plaint was filed on the 19th of September, 1923, and the allegations were that Mauza Bambhai bearing Tauzi No. 2351 had an area of 161 bighas and that more than fifty years before the lands of the mauza had been partitioned among all the proprietors. It was alleged that the defendants first party the largest co-sharers in the village had applied before the Collector for partition but that no notice under Section 21 of the Partition Act was served on the plaintiffs. When they heard of the application they filed an objection alleging the previous partition, but by collusion between the defendants and the batwara officers they were prevented from knowing the date fixed for hearing the objection which the Collector accordingly rejected. The cause of action arose on the date on which their objection was rejected by the Collector. It is of importance to state precisely the reliefs that were sought in this suit. They were as follows: 1. It may be adjudicated that the entire area appertaining to Mahal Bambhai, Pergana Goh, District Gaya has already been partitioned among all the proprietors by a private partition, as per details given in paras. 3 to 8 of the plaint and that all the proprietors have accepted and admitted the same and have been in possession of the thakhtas formed by private partition.

(2.) Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, first party or any of the defendants have no right to get partition effected under Section 7 of the Partition Act V of 1897.

(3.) The Collector's order, dated 27 September, 1921, is illegal, ultra vires and ineffectual.