Skip to main content

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title : Bhagwant Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh, CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh

Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022

Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal

Background

A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings had been conducted behind their back. Thus, they filed CWP-12737-2008 for quashing of the sanad. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners therein to avail alternative remedy of revision provided by Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Accordingly, the revision was filed on 19.05.2009. This revision petition was, however, dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2017 resulting in filing of the present writ petition.

The petitioners has argued that as their name is in the records, they should have been impleaded in the partition application and that the partition proceedings are vitiated as all co-sharers were not made party.

One of the question before the court was whether, non-impleadment of the petitioners as parties in the partition application has resulted in vitiation of the proceedings? If so, was the defect curable by impleadment of the vendors of the petitioners?

Judgment

The court observed that the names of the petitioners are clearly recorded in the remarks column thereof as vendees. In the jamabandi for the year 1994-95, their names find mention as vendees in the column of cultivation. It is settled law that every co-sharer is owner of every inch of joint land. The petitioners had become co-sharers by virtue of the sales in their favour and were entitled to participate in proceedings for partition of the joint land and claim their right for allotment of specific khasra numbers based upon value and quality of land. Having been denied this opportunity, the partition proceedings stand vitiated as a whole. Partition proceedings are vitiated, even if, a single co-sharer is not made a party or is not served in accordance with law. Thus,  the partition proceedings stand vitiated, is answered in the affirmative.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more