JUDGMENT : - Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 11.1.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Una), H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 76/94 whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 11.4.1994 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Case No. 821 of 1989. 2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 21 Kanal 15 marlas bearing Khewat No. 450 min, Khatauni No. 638, Khasra Nos. 4594/1192, 4596/1193, 1194, 1277, 1278, 1279 and 1280 as entered in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1980-81 situated in Village Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is owned and possessed by the plaintiff as Hissadar owner being the vendee from the defendants No.1 and 2 and order dated 17.12.1988 partitioning the suit land behind the back of the plaintiff and subsequent mutation on its basis is wrong, baseless as against the right of the plaintiff and for issuance of permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. It is further alleged in the plaint that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by her and the defendants No. 1 and 2 to the extent of half share and defendant No.3 is owner half share respectively. In fact defendant No.1 and 2, vide registered sale deed dated 12.12.1972 sold the suit land as Hissedar owners to the plaintiff and Smt. Niaz Bibi wife of Badar Deen and Sardaran Bibi wife of Jamal Deen for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. Later on Niaz Bibi and Sardaran Bibi sold their share in the above land vide two registered sale deeds dated 20.1.1977 in favour of the plaintiff. Lateron defendant No.3 in collusion with the defendants No. 1 and 2 with a view to harm the legal rights of the plaintiff filed a petition for partition of the suit land before the A.C.1st Grade, Amb wherein the plaintiff was not impleaded as a party nor the plaintiff has knowledge of such partition proceedings. Lateron defendant No.3 in collusion with the defendants No. 1 and 2 with a view to harm the legal rights of the plaintiff filed a petition for partition of the suit land before the A.C.1st Grade, Amb wherein the plaintiff was not impleaded as a party nor the plaintiff has knowledge of such partition proceedings. The defendants at the back of the plaintiff procured an order of partition of land in file No.1/88 whereby the land measuring 4 Kanals 10 marlas, out of the suit land was wrongly taken out and allotted to defendant No.3, thus causing deficiency of 4 Kanals 10 marlas to the plaintiff. As a result of aforesaid partition, order which has caused deficiency of 4 Kanals 10 Marlas, to the plaintiff the same is null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants No. 1 and 4 by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel and cause of action were taken. On merits, it was alleged by the defendants that previously land measuring 21 Kanals 15 Marlas was jointly owned and possessed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 alongwith other co-sharers and the plaintiff became co-sharers/owner on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds. It was further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff was party in the partition proceeding and the plaintiff had also appeared before the Revenue Officer at the time of conducting partition proceedings. If at all the plaintiff was aggrieved from the order of the Revenue Officer, she could have filed an appeal or revision before the competent authorities against such order. The defendant No.2 filed separate written statement and defendants No. 3, 9, 11 and 12 also filed separate written statement. They all have taken the similar stand as that of defendants No. 1 and 4. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statements filed by the defendants and re-affirmed and reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the assertions of the defendants made in their written statements. 5. They all have taken the similar stand as that of defendants No. 1 and 4. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statements filed by the defendants and re-affirmed and reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the assertions of the defendants made in their written statements. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:– 1- D;k oknh us eqruktk tehu 21 duky 15 ejys c:, fodz; ys[k 12-12-1972 [kjhnh o fgLlsnkjh ls dkfct gq, \ vks ih ih 2- D;k rdlhe oknh ds fcuk cqyk, dh xbZ gS \ vks ih ih 3- D;k okfnuh 4 duky 9 ejyk tehu ysus dh gdnkj gS \ vks ih ih 4- D;k okfnuh nkok ykus dh gdnkj uk gS \ vks ih Mh 5- D;k nkok fyehVs’ku esa gS \ vks ih Mh 6- D;k ;g vnkyr dh {ks=kf/kdkj uk gS \ vks ih Mh 7- jkgrA 6. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. However, in the appeal the said judgment and decree was reversed and this is how the matter has come up before this Court in second appeal 7. On 16.2.2001 this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the proper construction of the pleading of the parties and the evidence on record and provisions of law, especially of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, findings of the court below is vitiated? 2. Whether the Ld. court below has mis-read and misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence on record especially Ex.P-2 jamabandi 1981-82, Ex.P-3 Jamabandi 1966-67, Ex.PW-3/A, Ex.PW-3/B the sale Deeds, Ex.D-1, Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4 Rapat Roznamcha as also the statement of plaintiff as PW-1? 3. Whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted, where the revenue court has acted in contravention of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, and orders are based of revenue court on unilateral proceedings, without issuing notice to effected party or affording an opportunity of hearing? 4. Whether a civil courts jurisdiction can be ousted by a revenue court under the H.P. Land Revenue Act by passing orders pertaining to lis of parties with regard to land classified both as agricultural and partly as Abadi, and whether the revenue court orders are sustainable? 5. 4. Whether a civil courts jurisdiction can be ousted by a revenue court under the H.P. Land Revenue Act by passing orders pertaining to lis of parties with regard to land classified both as agricultural and partly as Abadi, and whether the revenue court orders are sustainable? 5. Whether possession can be validly given by a revenue agency on basis of handing it over symbolically, without actual plouging of field or actual delivery of possession and whether the mode of delivery is valid? 6. Whether the rights of the vendor are protected under the provisions of Section 53-A TPA, subject to the pendency of partition proceeding and where the transferee is put in possession on the basis of the performing his part of the contract? 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully and meticulously. Substantial questions of law No. 3 and 4: 9. Sh. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the learned lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable before the Civil Court in view of the bar imposed by Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (for short ‘Act’). He would submit that the partition proceedings were without jurisdiction as the appellant was neither served nor associated with those proceedings and, therefore, the same were not binding upon the appellant. 10. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Chamko Devi and another vs. Mohinder Singh and others Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 101 went into the entire gamut of the Act and held that the Act was a complete Code in itself and laid down a complete mechanism for partitioning of the land and further held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred as would be clear from the following observations: “11. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable keeping in view of the provision's of Section 171 of the Act. The Act is a complete Code in itself. It lays down complete procedure and mechanism for dealing with matter falling within the ambit and scope of the Act. Chapter IX deals with partition of the land jointly held by the parties. It lays down a complete mechanism for partitioning the land. The Act is a complete Code in itself. It lays down complete procedure and mechanism for dealing with matter falling within the ambit and scope of the Act. Chapter IX deals with partition of the land jointly held by the parties. It lays down a complete mechanism for partitioning the land. Any person aggrieved of the order passed by the officers can assail the same before the Appropriate authorities duly constituted under Chapter II of the Act. Section 171 specifically excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court with respect to matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer. For deciding the controversy in issue relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced as under:- " 171. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers - Except as otherwise provided by this Act- (i.) A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the State Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered by this Act, to dispose of or take cognizance of the matter in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act; and in particular - (ii) A Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely – (i) Any question as to the limits of any land which has been defined by a Revenue officer as land to which this Act does or does not apply; (ii) to (xvi)...................................................... (xvii) Any claim for partition of an estate holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of proceedings for partition not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought, (xiii) Any question as to the allotment of land on the partition of an estate holding or tenancy, or as to distribution of land subject by established custom to periodical redistribution, or as to the distribution of land revenue on the partition of an estate or holding or on a periodical redistribution of land, or as to the distribution of rent on the partition of a tenancy." 12. The provisions of the Act are unambiguous and clear. In the absence of any question of title in respect of property for which partition is sought jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. The provisions of the Act are unambiguous and clear. In the absence of any question of title in respect of property for which partition is sought jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. Similarly question of allotment of land on the partition of the holding is not to be gone into by the Civil Court. 19. Further under Chapter VII of the Act the Revenue Officer has the jurisdiction to go into the question of title by converting himself as a Civil Court. No such prayer was either made or sought for before the Revenue Officer.” 11. Further in RSA No. 222 of 2000 titled as Mast Ram (since deceased) through his LRs vs. Shankar Dass decided on 31.5.2014 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court reiterated the aforesaid exposition of law in the following terms: “25. Otherwise also, the dispute, if any, with regard to the delivery of possession of the land consequent upon the partition, can only be agitated before the revenue officer as envisaged under Section 134 of the Land Revenue Act. The aggrieved party cannot approach the Civil Court for the relief of possession. Support in this behalf has been drawn from the law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Gopi Chand and another Vs Sonam Dass and others, 1998(2) SLJ 1058, which reads as follows: “20. The matter with regard to delivery of possession of the land in dispute consequent upon partition ordered by the Revenue Officer falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of such Revenue Officer within the ambit of Section 134 of the Revenue Act. Therefore, if the plaintiffs have failed to obtain possession under Section 134 of the Revenue Act, they cannot approach the Civil Court for such relief of possession. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in Section 171(1) and Section 171(2)(xvii) of the Revenue Act.” 27. The present, as a matter of fact, is a case where under Section 171 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. The law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Bhekhalu Devi Vs. Smt. Ram Ditti and others, 2008(2) Shim. The present, as a matter of fact, is a case where under Section 171 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. The law laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Bhekhalu Devi Vs. Smt. Ram Ditti and others, 2008(2) Shim. L.C. 412, pressed into service on behalf of the respondents is distinguishable on facts, hence not applicable for the reason that the present is not a case where the question of title of any party in the suit land was in issue. Similarly, the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Khem Dutt and others Vs. Palkia and another, 1988 SLJ (HP) 172, , has also no application in the given facts and circumstances of this case, for the reason that present is not a case where instrument of partition has not been drawn. As per the own case of the respondents, the instrument of partition has been prepared, however, allegedly it is not as per the partition having taken place allegedly on the spot. Such dispute, therefore, could have been taken by them for redressal before the Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, no fault can be found on the findings returned qua this aspect of the matter by the learned lower Appellate Court. Substantial questions of law No. 1, 2 and 5: 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would then contend that learned Courts below have completely misled the pleadings and evidence available on record and, therefore, the findings recorded by them are vitiated on this count. I find no force in these arguments. It amazes me as to why the plaintiff at the first instance has approached the Court. In para 3 of the plaint, it has been categorically stated: “3………..The Defendants at the back of the plaintiff procured an order of partition in File No.1/88. By the said order of the partition land measuring 4 Kanals 10 Marlas out of the aforesaid 21 Kanals 15 Marlas of land was wrongly taken out and allotted to the Defendant No.3, thus causing a deficiency of 4 Kanals 10 Marlas to the plaintiff. The land measuring 21 Kanals 15 Marlas sold to the plaintiff is ‘Barani’ and most valuable. The defendants Nos. The land measuring 21 Kanals 15 Marlas sold to the plaintiff is ‘Barani’ and most valuable. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the above said partition proceedings wrongly got allotted Khasra No. 3874/2/2 measuring 3 Kanal 15 Mls to the plaintiff which is ‘Gair Mumkin Bheth’ and valueless waste land. The said order dated 17.12.1988 of A.C.1 Grade, Amb is wrong, illegal, null and void and ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not bound by the said illegal order.” 13. Ex.D-2 is the order dated 17.12.1988, which shows that a complete ‘Kura’ had been prepared in the name of the plaintiff though her name had been wrongly spelled and even the appellant has tried to disown the same. Nonetheless the fact remains that when pleadings in para – 3 as quoted above are taken into consideration, it is absolutely clear that this ‘kura’ belongs to none other but to the plaintiff because Khasra Nos. 3874/2/2 measuring 3 Kanal 15 Marlas has been allotted to the person mentioned in this ‘kura’ i.e. the plaintiff. Why I am amazed is because of the fact that the plaintiff all throughout has been crying hoarse that as against her Barani land, she has been allotted an area of 3 Kanal 15 Marlas in Khasra No. 3874/2/2, which is of an inferior quality ‘Gair Mumkin Bheth’ which is value-less and a waste land. In case Ex.D-2 is seen minutely, it reflects that save and except this khasra No. 3874/2/2 which measures 4 Kanal 19 Marlas and not 3 Kanal 15 Marlas as alleged, the appellant in fact has been allotted ‘Nehri’ land (irrigated) which is far more superior and valuable land than even ‘Barani’ land. Not only this, as against her original holding of 21 Kanals 15 Marlas, the appellant has been allotted land measuring 25 Kanals 19 Marlas, therefore, the plaintiff/appellant in such eventuality has in fact gained by not only being allotted more land than her earlier holding but even the quality of land allotted to her in the partition proceedings is far more superior. Substantial question of law No.6: 14. No arguments have been raised qua this substantial question of law rightly so since it does not arise for consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. Substantial question of law No.6: 14. No arguments have been raised qua this substantial question of law rightly so since it does not arise for consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. Consequently, in view of my aforesaid findings, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.