For Interpreting Section 121 Of Punjab Land Revenue Act, Analogy Can Be Drawn From Order XX Rule 18 Of CPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of interpreting Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act, the Court can safely draw an analogy from the provisions contained in Order XX, Rule 18 C.P.C. which pertain to the procedure to be followed on the passing of the decree for the partition of the property

The Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M.Trivedi, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v Jagtar Singh S/o Darshan Singh, has further held that when a Revenue Officer takes a decision under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, for partition of property, then the said partition would stand completed and the joint status of the parties would stand severed; subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 1980, Mr. Jit Singh sold his land (“Property”) to Jhabbar Singh (“Appellant/Defendant”). Right to pre-emption entitles the owner of an immovable property to repurchase a neighbouring property sold to another party. In 1981, Mr. Jagtar Singh (“Plaintiff”) filed the two civil suits, claiming to be co-sharer in the joint khewat along with the vendor Jit Singh. The Plaintiff prayed for possession of the Property on the ground that he has a superior right to pre-empt those sale deeds as the co-sharer in the joint ‘khewat’. However, no notice of the sale was given to the Plaintiff by the said owner Jit Singh. When the suits were pending adjudication, the Defendant filed a suit for partition of joint Khata (including the Property) before the Assistant Collector.

On 31.07.1982, the Assistant Collector passed an order partitioning the Property between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Consequently, the Civil Suits were dismissed by Trial Court holding that khewat in dispute was no more joint in view of order dated 31.07.1982, since the Plaintiff lost the joint status as the co-sharer on the date of passing the judgment and decree.

When the Plaintiff filed a first appeal before the District Judge, the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal by the Plaintiff. On 17.08.2007 the High Court held that since no instrument of partition was drawn on the date of passing of the decree by the Trial Court, the joint status of the parties had not come to an end. The Defendant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order.

SUPREME COURT VERDICT

The Bench observed that the pre-emptor must establish that he had the right to pre-empt on the date of sale, on the date of the filing of the suit and on the date of the passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance. If the claimant-plaintiff loses that right or the vendee improves his right equal or above the right of the claimant before the adjudication of the suit, the suit for pre-emption would fail.

The issue before the Bench was whether the Plaintiff had established his superior right of pre-emption all throughout and till the date of passing of the decree by the court of the first instance.

Analogy can be drawn from Order XX Rule 18 of CPC for interpreting Section 121 of Punjab Land Revenue Act

It was observed that Section 121 of Revenue Act states that when the partition is completed, the Revenue Officer shall cause an instrument of partition to be prepared and record in it the date on which the partition is to take effect.

The Bench placed reliance on Order XX Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) which pertain to the procedure to be followed on the passing of the decree for the partition of the property, for interpreting Section 121 of the Revenue Act. It was observed that when a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the “decree”.

It was observed as under:

“The consequential action of preparing the instrument of partition as contemplated in Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act would be only ministerial or administrative act to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case instituted before the Revenue Officer. Hence, once the decision on the property to be divided and on the mode of partition is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the joint status of the parties would stand severed on the date of such decision, subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The consequential action of drawing an instrument of partition would follow thereafter. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed.”

The Court opined that in view of the decision taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 of Revenue Act, the partition would stand completed, the joint status of the parties would stand severed and would remain no more joint, after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case.

The Bench held that the partition having been accepted as per the “Naksha Be”, the joint status of the parties stood severed. The High Court misinterpreted the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and erred in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the appellate court. The Bench quashed the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal.

Case Title: Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v Jagtar Singh S/o Darshan Singh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Narender Hooda (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Bhalla (Sr. Adv.)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment