JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. [November 10, 1937.] The three parties in this case are recorded as holding jointly khata khewat No. 2 in village Kalwari to which khata khewat No. 3, originally a shamilat patti with khata khewat I was added. (This shamilat patti forms the subject of appeal No. 82). On the 4th April, 1923, a duly registered partition deed was executed between B. Ranjit Narain Sahi on one side and B. Vikramajit Narain Sahi and Babu Lal Bahadur Sahi on the other. By the deed two qurras were formed and specific plots and shares in tenants' holdings allotted to each qurra. But no further action was taken as Vikramajit Narain Sahi at once resiled from his agreement. 2. On the 6th December, 1933, ten years later Ranjit Narain Sahi applied for partition "in accordance with the deed of partition." Vikramajit Narain Sahi objected to partition in accordance with the deed on behalf of himself and his minor ward, but the Partition Officer overruled his objection that partition could not be allowed as partition had already been effected, and directed him u/s 111(b) to file a civil suit to get the deed declared invalid. In appeal the Sub-divisional Officer Deoria decided u/s 111(a) on 19th July, 1934, that he would refuse partition until the validity of the partition deed had been decided by a competent Court, putting on the applicant Ranjit Narain Sahi the burden of getting the validity of the deed decided in his favour. 3. Ranjit Narain Sahi went in appeal to the Commissioner, though Section 133 does not allow an appeal to the Commissioner from an order u/s 111. The Commissioner then took the view that the proper course of the Appellant Ranjit Narain Sahi was to proceed by an application for correction u/s 39 and he apparently got the Respondent Vikramajit Narain Sahi to agree to this before him. Hence on the 8th December, 1934, Ranjit Narain Sahi put in his application for correction with the usual exordium that errors existed in the papers which needed correction. 4. The Pargana Officer took the view that the proper course of the parties was to proceed by partition and that if applicant wished that the partition should be on the basis of the deed, he should go to the Civil Court to get its validity established. He rejected the application. 5. 4. The Pargana Officer took the view that the proper course of the parties was to proceed by partition and that if applicant wished that the partition should be on the basis of the deed, he should go to the Civil Court to get its validity established. He rejected the application. 5. The Sub-divisional Officer went into the case at great length and found that the deed recorded the actual facts of possession and that the deed must be held to be perfectly valid until a Civil Court should declare it invalid. He found no difficulty in splitting up the tenants' holdings and rentals and directed that the parties should be recorded in the khatauni in accordance with the partition deed of 1923. The Commissioner upheld the finding of the Sub-divisional Officer that practical effect had been given to the partition deed (the actual case of the applicant being by the way that the deed gave effect to a pre-existing private partition) and added that if there were any disputes about the division of the tenants' holdings, they could be settled by suits u/s 123. He dismissed the appeal. 6. It is not denied that the applicant is trying to get a partition effected under cover of proceedings in a correction case and it is argued on his behalf that Chapter VII L.R. Act does not exhaust the methods by which partition can be effected. 1 am asked to hold that if parties have come to an agreement as to the manner in which partition shall be effected and have registered that agreement, either party can come before the Courts ten, fifty, one hundred years later and say "1 am in possession in accordance with the deed, correct khewat and khatauni accordingly." It is not so much a case of correcting errors as of recording a change and a transaction that has taken place affecting the rights and interests of the parties. 7. I would say at once that so far as the khewat is concerned there is no objection to correcting that u/s 39 if the parties are agreed. If the parties are not agreed, I think the Revenue Courts will usually be wise to refer the parties to the Civil Courts. 8. 7. I would say at once that so far as the khewat is concerned there is no objection to correcting that u/s 39 if the parties are agreed. If the parties are not agreed, I think the Revenue Courts will usually be wise to refer the parties to the Civil Courts. 8. In so far as the khatauni is concerned, the Courts will record changes based on possession, provided that they do not involve questions involving long drawn out disputes. But in this case the Courts are asked to record changes not only in the entries in the khatauni but in the proprietary sections into which the khatauni is divided. This of course is what is done at partition and Section 106 says that the procedure laid down in this Chapter (VII) shall be followed in all partitions except when it is otherwise expressly declared. Section 113 allows the parties to make a partition with the consent of the Collector, but I can find nothing in the Chapter allowing parties to make a partition out of Court and getting it entered in the papers by the back door of a correction case 9. The view taken by the Commissioner (Mr. Hobart) on the 2nd November, 1934, was frankly deplorable and the fact that Vikramajit Narain Sahi acquiesced in the Commissioner's view will not validate the wrong procedure prescribed by the Commissioner. 10. The Sub-divisional Officer (Mr. Lobo Prabhu) again went astray in his order of the 10th December, 1935, in considering that Sikandar v. Govind (1920) 4 U.D. 208 barred Ranjit Narain Sahi applying for partition. The ruling merely lays down that in certain conditions partition can be refused. The Pargana Officer had already shown that ;here was plenty of justification for allowing a partition. 11. The Commissioner (Mr. Shirreff) referred to Ramzan Ali v. Muhammad Qayum (1916) 2 U. D. 607 as supporting his view that effect could be given to the partition deed by correction. It will be seen that the Board while allowing the correction asked for in that case by which co-sharers in a taluqdari mahal were to be recorded in possession of different villages, made it quite clear that this did not constitute partition of the Taluqa which required the sanction of Government. It will be seen that the Board while allowing the correction asked for in that case by which co-sharers in a taluqdari mahal were to be recorded in possession of different villages, made it quite clear that this did not constitute partition of the Taluqa which required the sanction of Government. It may be noted further that the correction asked for in that case was correction of khewats alone and not of khataunis as well as khewats. The ruling in Ramzan Ali y. Muhammad Qayum (1916) 2 U. D. 607 cannot possibly apply in this case. 12. I have no hesitation in holding that the soundest order in this case was passed by the S.D.O. Deoria (Mr. Langford) on the 19th July, 1934. If Ranjit Narain Sahi wants partition I would allow his application to be restored provided he drops the claim to partition in accordance with the deed; but if be wants it in accordance with the deed of 1923, that means that he is claiming proprietary rights, which Vikramajit Narain Sahi denies and which are not in accordance with the official records. It is therefore for him to go to the Civil Court and get the validity of the deed confirmed and until he produces the order of the Civil Court the application will not be entertained. 13. As for costs, one cannot help admitting that a wrong order of the Commissioner is responsible for the futile waste of the time of four Courts, but Ranjit Narain Sahi has himself to thank for the result because he has deliberately chosen to manoeuvre for position in the Revenue Courts, to avoid having to open proceedings himself in the Civil Courts. On the whole I see no reason why he should not pay the Appellant's costs in these correction proceedings throughout with Rs. 32 pleader's fee in this Court. Darling, S.M.( November 12, 1937) 14. I agree.