ORDER By the Court. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 against the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act on 23.03.2002 in Revision Petition No. 97/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent, Shri Durga Dass, filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Sarkaghat for partition of land comprised in khata khatauni No. 58, 66, 67, kita 6, area measuring 2-70-76 Hect. situated in Mohal Khudla, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade allowed the application on 05.09.1998 after disallowing the plea of the present petitioners that a question of title was involved in the matter. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division Sarkaghat, who rejected the same on 14.06.1999. The petitioners further filed a revision petition, before the Additional Deputy Commissioner Mandi exercising the powers of Commissioner who also disallowed the same on 23.03.2002 while upholding the orders of the Courts below. 3. The record of the Courts below was called for and examined. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties were heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Shri Rajesh Mandotra, Advocate stressed the point that a question of title existed so far as the suit land was concerned and therefore the revenue officer should not have gone ahead with the partition of the land. He particularly referred to the judgment of the Honble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 175/92 wherein the matter regarding partition of the suit land through the orders of the Additional Director (Consolidation of Holdings) was challenged. In that CWP also the present revision petitioners had raised the issue of question of title in the property to be partitioned and the Honble High Court had set aside the partition proceedings. Shri Durga Dass had again filed an application for partition of his recorded land holdings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the same had been accepted vide order dated 05.09.1998. This was challenged before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The Commissioner has concluded that Shri Durga Dass was recorded as a co-owner of the land in question and it was an established law that "possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all co-sharers". This was challenged before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The Commissioner has concluded that Shri Durga Dass was recorded as a co-owner of the land in question and it was an established law that "possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all co-sharers". While referring to the judgment of H.P. High Court the Commissioner has also recorded that the Court had not debarred Shri Durga Dass from seeking partition of his land holdings if he could do so in law. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stressed that the revenue officers below had ignored the reference made in the judgment of the H.P. High Court that "ouster" is one of the recognized and legal mode of claiming adverse possession against a co-owner. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent, Shri Ajay Chandel Advocate, argued that mere statement by the opposite party regarding question of title arising in respect of the suit land would not imply acceptance of this claim. Shri Durga Dass was a co-owner of the land in question and in the Misal Haqiyat of 1993-94 he was also recorded as being in possession of part of the land. The presumption of truth had to be attached to the entries in the revenue records and therefore, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade has rightly accepted the partition of land and the Commissioner had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. 5. Having heard the Counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the proceedings of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, I am of the view that the revenue officer below has not given adequate attention to the contention of Shri Lekh Raj and others that a question of title existed regarding the suit land. The revision petitioners in their submission before the Courts at different levels had stated that the land in question was purchased in the name of 4 brothers viz. Shri Nanak Chand, Bhandri, Thainu and Shri Durga Dass. However, Shri Durga Dass got the land belonging to their maternal grandfather by way of gift and he was the only person amongst his brothers who benefited in this manner. Shri Nanak Chand, Bhandri, Thainu and Shri Durga Dass. However, Shri Durga Dass got the land belonging to their maternal grandfather by way of gift and he was the only person amongst his brothers who benefited in this manner. Because of this, Shri Durga Dass remained settled at Village Jakhyol, District Hamirpur where the land received by him from his maternal grandfather was situated and he never cultivated or was in possession of the land in Village Khudla, Tehsil Sarkaghat. Shri Durga Dass has also admitted that he was the only beneficiary of the gift from his maternal grandfather and his brothers did not benefit from the same. It is quite possible therefore that although Shri Durga Dass is shown as having purchased land in Tehsil Sarkaghat alongwith his brothers as per the sale deed and mutation was attested accordingly, that he never actually cultivated or was in possession of the land in Tehsil Sarkaghat. A question of title therefore clearly arises regarding the suit land and either the revenue officer should have proceeded to determine the same or he should have referred the matter to the Civil Court for deciding the issue. The revenue officer should also have taken note of the observation of the H.P. High Court in CWP No. 175/92 wherein the background of the case has been discussed in detail. The High Court has observed: "Prima facie from the averments as well as other circumstances explained in Annexure PI, it was manifestly clear that question of title is directly involved in relation to the matter of the holding of respondent No. 3 as a co-sharer with the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, yet respondent No. 2 held that a co-sharer cannot be held to be in adverse possession. The said respondent forgot that ouster is one of the recognized and legal mode of claiming adverse possession against a co-owner. The said respondent forgot that ouster is one of the recognized and legal mode of claiming adverse possession against a co-owner. Without adverting to the application filed by the petitioners to which reference has been made in Annexure PP and it was there on the record at pages 147 to 149 during the preparation of the consolidation scheme as this respondent for the reasons best known to him did not care to notice the facts as detailed in the said application and thus has failed into error." It may be noted that respondent No. 2 is the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings H.P. The observation of the Honble High Court cannot be brushed aside by the revenue officers by reiterating in their orders that "the possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all the co-sharers." In view of the above the revision petition is accepted and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sarkaghat for taking a fresh look at the case in question after giving due opportunity to all the concerned parties. Record of the lower Courts be returned and the case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Announced in the open Court today the 14th March, 2006. Revision Petition disposed of.