LexABDUL REJAK LASKAR versus MAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1911 : 2024 INSC 1023 Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14805 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court held that the s.154(1)(e) of the the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction; whether the High Court committed any error in taking view that the suit filed by the appellant herein was barred u/s.154(1)(e) of the Regulation, 1886. Headnotes† Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – s.154(1)(e) and s.97 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XX, r.18 – The Appellate Court vide order dated 20.04.1993 passed in Title Appeal No. 59/1990 held that the appellant herein was entitled to a decree for declaration of right, title and interest and also joint possession of suit land along with other co-pattadars – The decree passed by the First Appellate Court attained finality – The Plaintiff instituted the Partition Case No. 45/99- 2000 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner seeking imperfect partition of the suit land under the the Regulation, 1886 – The Additional Deputy Commissioner declined to partition the suit land on the ground that the plaintiff was not in actual possession of the land and there was no consent from the other co-sharer of the land – Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted a civil suit, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek imperfect partition in view of the bar encoded in s.154(1)(e) of the Regulation, 1886 – The High Court held that the s.154(1)(e) of the the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction – Correctness: *Author 1912 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Held: The jurisdiction of the civil court u/s.154(1)(e) would be barred only if an imperfect partition suit is otherwise maintainable u/s.97 – To maintain a suit for imperfect partition u/s.97, the appellant has to fulfill two conditions stipulated therein – a) First, the person seeking partition should be in actual possession of the property in respect of which he seeks partition, and; b) Secondly, the co-sharers may not be ready and willing to give their consent and if the person seeking partition is not in actual possession then no other remedy is available to him except to go before the civil court and seek partition on the basis of his own title as a co-owner – A reference in this connection may be made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Musstt. Rukeya Banu & Ors. v. Musstt. Nazira Banu & Ors. where it was pointed out that a partition, whether perfect or imperfect, of revenue-paying properties must be made by the Revenue authorities – This follows from a conjoint reading of Sections 96 and 154(1)(e) of the Regulation, 1886 respectively – However, the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine the right of the parties to the property in dispute as well as shares to which they are entitled has not been taken away by the Regulation in question, and it is for the civil court to decide whether the property is or is not liable to partition – The same view applies to other clauses of Section 154 – The parties to a suit are entitled to obtain a declaration from the civil court that they have got the right to obtain from the revenue authorities a separation and allotment of their shares in the estate according to their proportionate rights – It is the civil court which will decide whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek partition and to what extent – If it is found by the court that revenue paying properties have to be partitioned among the parties, the court may declare the share of each of the parties and leave them to go to the revenue authorities for making the necessary performance – Further in various decisions of Gauhati High Court, it is clarified that the bar created by s.154(1) does not preclude suits based on title to the property from being within the jurisdiction of civil courts – The impugned judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside for not being sustainable in law. [Paras 52, 53-57] Partition – Perfect or imperfect: Held: Partition is either perfect or imperfect – Perfect partition means division of a revenue paying estate into two or more such [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1913 Abdul Rejak Laskar v. Mafizur Rahman & Ors. estates each separately liable for revenue assessed thereon – Imperfect pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.