ORDER Shri R. K. Anand, F. C—Petitioner, Smt. Punni has preferred a revision petition against the order, dated 5-7-1984 of the Collector, Solan District, By virtue of the impugned order, he dismissed the petitioners revision petition and upheld the order, dated 30-9-1983 of the Sub-Divisional Collector. It was held by him that since the respondents were co-sharers of the land, they were entitled to apply for the partition of their share in accordance with the provisions of section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. He also observed that the question of title had been decided by the Revenue Officer vide his order, dated 3 11-1981 and since that order was not challenged, the same question could not be raised again, at this stage, 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent, Chet Ram applied for the partition of his share in the land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 4/7 measuring 15-18 Bighas situated in village Ganol, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. His partition application was allowed vide order, dated 10-5-1983 by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kasauli. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner Smt. Punni preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, on the ground that an opportunity of being heard was not given to her and ex pane orders had been passed by the Revenue Officer below. She also contended that she was in exclusive possession of the land and a suit had been decreed against Smt. Dev Wati from the land had been purchased by the respondent, Chet Ram. She further stated that since Smt. Dev Wati had no title, right or interesl to sell the land to Chet Ram, the latter had no locus standi to apply for partition of his share. The Sub-Divisional Collector, however, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the respondent. Chet Ram who was a joint owner of the land and whose share had been duly enteted in the revenue record was competent to apply for the partition. This order of the Sub-Divisional Collector was assailed in revision petition before the District Collector, who as stated above, dismissed the same. 3. I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the court record. The main contention of the petitioner is that Smt. Dev Wati had sold her land without getting her share in the land partitioned. 3. I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the court record. The main contention of the petitioner is that Smt. Dev Wati had sold her land without getting her share in the land partitioned. Moreover, since the question of title was involved, the land could not have been partitioned and, therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, deserved to be set-aside. It was also contended by her that an opportunity of being heard had not been given to her before the order on the application for the partition was passed by the Revenue Officer below. 4. From the perusal of the Court record, it appears that Smt. Dev Wati, respondent No. 6, sold her share in the land vide sale deed No. 141 dated 17-5-1970, It was a registered sale deed and subsequetly, the mutation was also attested in the name of the vendee, Chat Ram. He applied for the partition of his share in 1980. The fact Sm,t, Dev wati was a co-sharer in the land in question is borne out from the Jamabandi for the year 1976-77, In the column of ownership, her name has been duly entered. After the sale of the land, the name of the vendee, Chet Ram was substituted as a result of the mutation No. 163. In other words, Chet Ram became a co-sharer of the land alongwith the petitioner, Smt. Punni. 5. The point for determination is whether after purchasing the land and being a co-sharer, he was entitled to seek the partiton of his share, Section 123 of H. P. Land Revenue Act states that any joint owner of land can apply to a Revenue Officer for partition of his share in the land if on the date of application his share is recorded under chapter IV as belonging to him. Form a plain reading of the section it appears that two conditions have to be satisfied before an application for partition can be made. These condetions that are the person asking for partition should be a joint owner of the land and his share should be recorded in the revenue record. In this case, as stated above, the respondent Chet Ram became the joint owner after Smt. Dev Wati sold her share of the land to him. These condetions that are the person asking for partition should be a joint owner of the land and his share should be recorded in the revenue record. In this case, as stated above, the respondent Chet Ram became the joint owner after Smt. Dev Wati sold her share of the land to him. On the date of the partition application, which was made on 6-9-1980 he was recorded as a joint owner in the record of rights as is obvious from the copy of the Jamabandi of the year 1976-77, which is on the file. In other words, he fulfilled the requirements of section 123 of H. P. Land Revenue Act and was, therefore, entitled to make an application for partition of his share. 6. As regards the contention of the petitioner that an opportunity of being heard was not given to her before the partition application was allowed, it appears from the record of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, that she was made a party and was fully aware that the partition application had been filed by the respondent, Chet Ram. In fact, on 11-8-1981, she was present in the court. It was on 22-9-1981 that she did not appear in the Court without any explanation. She did not make a request for an adjournment either. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade however, issued a notice to her From the order sheet of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, it is apparent that she was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard but she did not appear in the court in spite of service ot the notice on her. As she intentionally absented herself from the court in spite of the service of the notice and personal knowledge that the partition application was pending, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, was justified in proceeding against her ex parte. In short, her contention that she was not given an opportunity of being heard is without any basis and is not tenable in the face of the evidence to the contrary. 7. The decree of the Senior Sub-Judge, Solan is with regard to the possession of the land and not its ownership. From the Jamabandi entries, it is evident that the land is in the joint ownership of the parties and in view of the Jamabandi entries to which presumption of truth is attached, the question of title does not arise. 7. The decree of the Senior Sub-Judge, Solan is with regard to the possession of the land and not its ownership. From the Jamabandi entries, it is evident that the land is in the joint ownership of the parties and in view of the Jamabandi entries to which presumption of truth is attached, the question of title does not arise. In view of the above, there is no force or substance in the revision petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed.