JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.2014 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 30-N/13 of 2014/12. 2. ?Key facts? necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ?plaintiff? for convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he alongwith proforma defendants No. 4 to 13 were only co-owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 15 measuring 12-18 bighas and Khasra No. 62 measuring 2-12 bighas, kita 2 total land measuring 15-10 bighas situated in Mauza Shyampur-Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (hereinafter referred to as the ?suit land? for brevity sake) and the appellants defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' for convenience sake) have no right, title and interest in the property of late Sh. Mehru. Earlier Mangta son of Kharku was owner in possession of the suit land and after his death, suit land was inherited by plaintiff and proforma defendants No.4 to 9 vide mutation No. 208. Mehru son of Mangta was unmarried who died issueless. Defendants in connivance with the revenue staff got recorded themselves as legal heirs of Mehru, whereas they were the legal heirs of Tultu resident of village Sataun. Defendants were not related with the plaintiff and proforma defendants. Defendant Daulat Ram sold his land of village Sataun to Sh. Uday Ram son of Layak Ram, resident of village Poka vide sale deeds dated 13.2.1997 and 26.12.1998. Giano Devi had relinquished her share in favour of defendant Daulat Ram vide release deed dated 12.3.1996. In these documents defendants have been shown son and daughter of Tultu resident of village Sataun. In the year 2002, contesting defendant filed an application for partition before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib. Plaintiff and proforma defendants being illiterate could not engage any counsel and their statements were recorded to partition the land. When the plaintiff and proforma defendants came to know about the land under partition and status of defendants, they engaged the counsel and came to know that defendants were claiming the share of late Sh. Mehru by showing themselves to be the legal heirs of late Sh. Mehru. When the plaintiff and proforma defendants came to know about the land under partition and status of defendants, they engaged the counsel and came to know that defendants were claiming the share of late Sh. Mehru by showing themselves to be the legal heirs of late Sh. Mehru. Plaintiff and proforma defendants filed objections before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib that defendants were not the legal heirs of late Sh. Mehru. However, the objections were rejected in an illegal manner by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib vide order dated 13.10.2003 and 20.10.2003. He sanctioned the partition vide order dated 27.12.2003. Cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff on 12.8.2004 when defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land. Defendant Daulat during the pendency of the suit has alienated his share in the suit land through registered sale deed No. 1416 dated 1.12.2007 to Naresh Kumar son of Ram Darshan, resident of Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. Defendants Giano Devi and Nirmala Devi have alienated their shares in the suit land through registered sale deed No. 1195 dated 11.10.2007 to Rajender Singh son of Gian Chand, resident of Mehal Dhabon, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur. According to the plaintiff, defendants were sons and daughter of late Sh. Tultu son of Nandu, resident of village Sataun, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. The succession of Mehru of his land in favour of defendants and subsequent sale of the suit land by defendants No.1 to 3 to defendants No.13 and 14 through registered sale deeds No.1406 and 1195 dated 1.12.2007 and 11.10.2007 were illegal and fraudulent. 3. Defendants No.2 and 3, namely, Giano Devi and Nirmala Devi have filed written statement. They have taken plea under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to them, Revenue Officer has already decided all the questions involved in the suit in the partition case No. 71/2002. Mode of partition was framed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. After framing of the mode of partition, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade ordered the lower Revenue Staff to partition the land in accordance with the share, kind and quality of the land and on the basis of the order of Revenue Officer, partition of the suit land was effected on the spot. After framing of the mode of partition, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade ordered the lower Revenue Staff to partition the land in accordance with the share, kind and quality of the land and on the basis of the order of Revenue Officer, partition of the suit land was effected on the spot. Khatauni alongwith tatimas of the land allotted to each of the co-sharer of the Khata were prepared by the revenue staff. All the co-sharers were present before Revenue Officer. They made their statements of the correctness of the partition on the spot. Bishan Singh, Durga Ram, Shakuntla filed objections about the non-acceptance of the partition. Their objections were dismissed on 20.10.2003. Thereafter, instrument of partition was ordered on 27.12.2003. According to them, instrument of partition was framed. Plaintiff and proforma defendants did not file any appeal against the order of Revenue Officer nor challenged the order before District Judge. It was stated that Mehru son of Mangta was married with Smt. Jamni .Defendants No.1 to 3 were born from the loin of Mehru son of Mangta and after the death of Mehru son of Mangta, mutation No. 1083 dated 2.12.1989 was attested in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 and Smt. Jamni Devi, being son, daughters and widow of late Sh. Mehru. Revenue entries incorporated in the revenue record in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 were legal and correct. It was admitted that defendant No.2 had relinquished her share in favour of defendant No.1. It was further stated that Jamni Devi, mother of defendants No.1 to 3 was married to one Tultu resident of village Sataun and after his death, she married to Mehru son of Mangta, father of answering defendants. 4. Defendants No.4 and 7 to 9 have also filed written statement. They have admitted paras 1 to 9 of the plaint. 5. Proforma defendants No.10 to 12 have also filed separate written statement. According to them, they became owners by registered sale deed executed by Bishan Singh, plaintiff and his brother, namely, Ranjeet Singh on 17.7.1997 and sale deeds dated 21.1.1996, 11.4.1996 and 24.10.2003. They were in exclusive possession as per their share of land sold by plaintiff and his brother Ranjeet Singh. 6. Defendant No.5 has also filed written statement stating therein that after the death of Mehru son of Mangta, plaintiff Durga Ram and answering defendant were cultivating their shares separately. They were in exclusive possession as per their share of land sold by plaintiff and his brother Ranjeet Singh. 6. Defendant No.5 has also filed written statement stating therein that after the death of Mehru son of Mangta, plaintiff Durga Ram and answering defendant were cultivating their shares separately. Defendants No.1 to 3 have no right, title and interest in the suit land and their names as legal heirs of deceased Mehru have wrongly been entered in the revenue record. 7. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement filed by defendants. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 19.1.2007 and 11.9.2009. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2012. Defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan. He dismissed the same on 13.6.2014. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 8. Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned counsel for the appellants, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that jurisdiction of civil court was barred under section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. He has also contended that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the documents Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/E. He has also referred to documents Ex.DW-1/A to Ex.DW-1/P and Ex.DW-2/B to Ex.DW-2/E. According to him, defendants were legal heirs of Mehru. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments passed by both the courts below. 10. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, the same are taken together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 11. According to Ex.PW-2/C, Jamabandi for the year 1962-1963, mutation of inheritance of the property of Mangta bearing No.208 was attested on 3.6.1967 in favour of Mehru, Rania, Durga Ram, Bishan Singh, Phool Singh and daughter Smt. Shakuntla Devi and Narda Devi. They have inherited the property of Mangta after his death. 12. PW-1 Ramesh Kumar has brought the summoned record and copy of certificate Ex.PW-1/A. 13. PW-2 Bishan Singh, plaintiff, has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A. He came to know that Daulat Ram sold his land to Naresh and Giano Devi and Nirmala sold the land to Rajender. They could not sell the land because they were not the owners of the land. He and Durga Ram were the owners. Defendants were sons of Tultu. They could not sell the land because they were not the owners of the land. He and Durga Ram were the owners. Defendants were sons of Tultu. He has proved copy of sale deed Ex.PW-2/K vide which Daulat Ram has sold land to Naresh Kumar and copy of sale deed Ex.PW-2/L vide which Giano Devi and Nirmala Devi have sold their land to Rajinder Singh. He has admitted that Giano Devi and Nirmala Devi had filed an application before Tehsildar for partition of land. He has denied that on 7.8.2002, he appeared before the Tehsildar and deposed that he has no objection with regard to partition. 14. DW-1 Deep Chand Sharma, Senior Assistant from Tehsil Office has brought the summoned record and certified copies were Ex.DW-1/A to Ex.DW-1/P. He has admitted that he has seen the objections filed by Bishan Singh in the summoned file vide Ex.PW-2/J. 15. DW-2 Giano Devi has led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-2/A. She has furnished documents Ex.DW-2/B to Ex.DW-2/E. She has denied that Jamni was the wife of Tultu. She has denied that from the loin of Jamni and Tultu, Daulat, Ginao and Nirmala were born. She has denied that Tultu died in the year 1972. Volunteered that he died about 45 years back. She did not know that after the death of Tultu, mutation of his property was attested in favour of Sundlu, Daulat Ram, Kamla, Satya and Giano and her mother Jamni on 8.3.1972. She has admitted that the land of Tultu was inherited by her. She by preparing relinquish deed on 12.3.1996 has given this land to her brother Daulat Ram. 16. DW-3 Naresh Kumar has purchased 18 biswas of land from Daulat Ram situated in Mauza Shyampur Gorkhuwala for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- through sale deed Ex.PW-2/K. According to him, the land was inherited by Daulat Ram from his father Mehar Singh. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Mehar Singh belonged to Shyampur-Gorkhuwala and name of his father was Mangta. He has also admitted that name of mother of Daulat Ram was Jamni. He has denied that Jamni was the wife of Tultu. Volunteered that she was the wife of Mehru. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Mehar Singh belonged to Shyampur-Gorkhuwala and name of his father was Mangta. He has also admitted that name of mother of Daulat Ram was Jamni. He has denied that Jamni was the wife of Tultu. Volunteered that she was the wife of Mehru. He did not know when Tultu died and the mutation of inheritance of his property was attested in favour of his sons Sundlu, Daulat Ram, daughters Kamla, Satya and Giano Devi and his wife Jamni Devi dated 8.3.1972 vide mutation No. 598. 17. DW-4 Daulat Ram has deposed that his mother's name was Jamni Devi. She was married with Tultu. After the death of Tultu, Jamni was married with Mehar Singh. His mother Jamni Devi was having two children from loin with Tultu such as Sundlu and Satya Devi. His mother was having three children from Mehar Singh such as Giano Devi, Nirmala Devi and he himself. His father Mehar Singh was working in P.W.D. He died on 13.10.1989. He performed the last rites of his father. After the death of his father, all benefits were taken by his mother Jamni and he took the job at the place of his father. Case of partition was filed in the court of Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib. He received 18 biswas of land by way of partition. He has sold the land to Naresh Kumar by way of registered sale deed for consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He has delivered the possession of the land to Naresh Kumar. He has no relation with Tultu. He was born on 15.11.1967. He has denied that Tultu died in the year 1971. Volunteered that he died prior to 1965. He did not know whether mutation of inheritance of property of Tultu was attested on 14.2.1972. He has admitted that Giano Devi vide relinquishment deed Ex.PW-2/G relinquished her share in his favour of the land. 18. PW-5 Ramesh Kumar has proved copy of Pariwar register Ex.PW- 5/A. He has admitted in his cross-examination that Jamni Devi was recorded the wife of Mehar Singh after his death. He has prepared Ex.PW-1/A. 19. The core issue involved in this Regular Second Appeal is whether the defendants are sons and daughter of Mehar Singh or they are sons and daughter of Tultu. He has prepared Ex.PW-1/A. 19. The core issue involved in this Regular Second Appeal is whether the defendants are sons and daughter of Mehar Singh or they are sons and daughter of Tultu. According to Sajra Nasab Ex.PW-2/E, Tultu was having sons and daughters Daulat Ram, Sundlu, Kamla, Satya, Giano Devi and his wife was Jamni Devi. According to copy of Pariwar Register of Tultu of Gram Panchayat Sataun Ex.PW-1/A, Jamni Devi was the wife of Tultu and Kamla, Sundlu, Satya and Daulat Ram were shown sons and daughters. In sale deed Ex.PW-2/F, qua the land of Tultu in favour of Uday Ram, Daulat Ram has written his parentage in the name of Tultu. Similarly, Giano Devi has also relinquished her share received by her of the land of Tultu in favour of her brother Daulat Ram vide release deed Ex.PW-2/G in the year 1996. It also shows Giano Devi as the daughter of Tultu. In her examination-in-chief, DW-2 Giano Devi has deposed that she did not know Tultu. However, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that the property of Tultu which she received has been released by her in favour of Daulat Ram on 12.3.1996. Defendants have produced copy of Pariwar register Ex.DW-5/A wherein Jamni Devi has been shown as wife of Mehar Singh vide resolution No.4 dated 6.11.1989. However, Mehar Singh has been shown as dead on 13.10.1989. This document also reflects that Jamni Devi in the first column was wife of Tultu. PW-1 Ramesh Kumar did not know how Mehar Singh's name was recorded in Ex.DW-5/A and how Jamni Devi was shown as wife of Mehar Singh when he has died on 13.10.1989. According to Ex.DW-2/D, land of Tultu was inherited by Jamni Devi as his wife, vide mutation No.598. Mutation was attested on 8.3.1972. Defendants have not produced any documents on the basis of which Jamni Devi is proved to be married to Mehar Singh vide Ex.DW-5/A. Plaintiff and proforma defendants have appeared before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and raised the question of title and despite that Assistant Collector 1st Grade has passed the order of partition. Mutation was attested on 8.3.1972. Defendants have not produced any documents on the basis of which Jamni Devi is proved to be married to Mehar Singh vide Ex.DW-5/A. Plaintiff and proforma defendants have appeared before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and raised the question of title and despite that Assistant Collector 1st Grade has passed the order of partition. It is evident from section 129 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 when there is a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought, the Revenue Officer may decline to grant the application for partition until the question has been determined by a competent court or he may himself proceed to determine the question as though he were such a court. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade has not converted himself to civil court after the question of title was raised. According to section 171 (2) (xvii) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy or any question connection 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. In the instant case, since question of title was raised, jurisdiction of civil court would not be ousted as per section 171 (2) (xvii) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. According to document Ex.PW-2/H, Ex.DW-1/B, Ex.DW-1/C, Ex.DW-1/D and Ex.DW-1/E, Bishan Singh, Durga Ram etc. had preferred objections before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade stating that contesting defendants were legal heirs of Tultu and not of Mehar Singh. However, surprisingly, Assistant Grade 1st Grade in his order vide Ex.DW-1/N and Ex.DW-2/H has observed that relief could be sought from the appropriate competent civil court. He should have decided the question by converting himself into civil court when the question of title was raised or in the alternate he should not have proceeded with the matter and should have relegated the parties to approach the civil court before passing order. Thus, order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 13.10.2003, 20.10.2003 and 27.12.2003 were bad in law. 20. This Court in Leetho vs. Chamelo and others, 2001 (2) S.L.C. 238 has held as under: ?11. Thus, order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 13.10.2003, 20.10.2003 and 27.12.2003 were bad in law. 20. This Court in Leetho vs. Chamelo and others, 2001 (2) S.L.C. 238 has held as under: ?11. Therefore, in the light of settled legal position this Court has no hesitation to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Civil Court had the jurisdiction, as question of title was raised by the plaintiff by making; allegations that the land in dispute stood partitioned long back, as a result of which he was holding the land comprised of four Khasra numbers (1632/ 406, 1636/407, 425 and 1646/472) allotted to him, to the exclusion of other co-sharers. There was additional reason for invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court on the allegations that the impugned order dated 21.9.1983 partitioning the land in dispute was passed ex parte without proper service on the plaintiff; in violation of the principles of natural justice and without following the procedure laid down under H.P. Land Revenue Act. In this view of the matter, the findings of the first appellate Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff are set aside and substantial question of law No. l is answered accordingly.? 21. According to Ex.DW-2/D, Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and mutation No. 598, the property of Tultu was inherited by Jamni Devi as wife, his sons Sandlu, Daulat Ram and daughters Kamla and Satya. The mutation was attested on 8.3.1972. Defendant Daulat Ram while appearing as DW-4 has stated that the land of Tultu Ram was sold by him to Uday Ram through registered sale deed Ex.PW-1/F. Defendant Daulat Ram during the pendency of the suit has alienated his share vide Ex.PW-2/K. Defendants No.2 and 3 have alienated the land through registered sale deed Ex.PW-2/L. They have not sought permission of the Court before selling their respective shares to defendant Nos. 13 and 14. Thus, sale deed Nos. 1416 and 1195 dated 1.12.2007 and 11.10.2007, i.e. Ex.PW-2/K and Ex.PW-2/L have rightly been declared illegal and void by both the courts below. Accordingly, it is held that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the suit. 22. 13 and 14. Thus, sale deed Nos. 1416 and 1195 dated 1.12.2007 and 11.10.2007, i.e. Ex.PW-2/K and Ex.PW-2/L have rightly been declared illegal and void by both the courts below. Accordingly, it is held that the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the suit. 22. Order of partition and subsequent preparation of instruction of partition were illegal since Assistant Collector 1st Grade has not decided the issue in accordance with law either by converting himself as civil court or asking the parties to approach the civil court. 23. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by both the courts below. 24. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, no question of law much less to say substantial of law is involved in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.