9911796707
TMI Blog1912 (12) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three groups of co-sharers cultivated their separate sir lands. The defendants, second party, are the plaintiffs' half brothers and uncles and aunt. The first set of defendants applied to the Collector under the Land Revenue Act for partition of their share into a separate mahal, The plaintiff was then a minor, and, as the names of all the members of the family were recorded in the khewat, his name was also recorded therein under the guardianship of his half brother, Lachman. There was no objection to the partition, nor is it denied even now that the parties to the partition were the owners in possession of their recorded shares. In the wajib-ul-arz there was recorded the express wish of the then co-sharers that at the time of partitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and his family cultivated as sir, were placed in the mahal of the first defendants. In the course of the partition case the Revenue Court omitted to make any formal appointment of a guardian ad litem for the present plaintiff. The application for partition was made on the 19th of February, 1908. On the 2nd of April a petition was filed by the plaintiffs brothers and uncles to the effect that they had no objection. It was not signed by Lachman, but by Jokhu on his behalf and the plaintiff's name was omitted. On the 2nd of July, 1908, the agreement mentioned above was written and it was filed on the 3rd of July, 1908, and with it a mukhtarnamah signed with Lachman's name. Plaintiff's name was entered in this application (or agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur pie share of the family and those plots of land which had been the sir and khudkasht of plaintiffs' family and which had been allotted to them (the defendants). In the alternative he asked to be put into possession of those specific plots. The court of first instance held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit in respect only to his own share and granted a declaration that the partition was not binding on him and that the defendants, first party, were not entitled to the possession of the plots (of sir and khudkasht) in dispute belonging to the plaintiffs share. It was further declared that the decree did not affect the rights of the defendants, first party, regarding so much of the lands in dispute as appertained to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect to the partition of mehals except as provided in Sections 111 and 112 of the Act. The present suit does not fall under either of these two latter section Of course a person who was no party to a partition proceeding in the Revenue Court could hardly be held to be bound by such a partition, but the Civil Court, while giving him relief in such a case, could not go behind the partition and redistribute the land. It would have to take the new mehals as they were and give the plaintiff adequate relief. The plaintiff's case is that by reason of the omission of the Revenue Court to formally appoint a guardian he was really no party to the partition, and that, even if this formal defect be not fatal to the partition, his brother, Lachman, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
