Jurisdiction in Partition Suits: Supreme Court Rules on Civil Court Authority in Abdul Rejak Laskar vs. Mafizur Rahman (20 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 20 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 1023
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

When can a civil court intervene in a property partition matter, especially when revenue authorities are also involved? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question in a case concerning the partition of land in Assam. This judgment clarifies the boundaries of civil court jurisdiction in partition suits, particularly concerning imperfect partitions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, delivered a judgment that clarifies the interplay between civil and revenue courts in partition matters.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute that began in 1973 when the respondents, Mafizur Rahman and another, inherited land in Nagaon, Assam. They became joint owners, each possessing 1 katha and 5 lechas of land. In 1977, Mafizur Rahman sold his entire share to the appellant, Abdul Rejak Laskar, through two registered sale deeds. After acquiring the land, Laskar faced dispossession attempts by the original owners, leading to a series of legal battles.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the appellant’s suit for confirmation of his rights was decreed in his favor, but this was overturned on appeal due to non-joinder of necessary parties. After a fresh trial, the suit was dismissed again for the same reason. The first appellate court then granted the appellant a decree for joint possession, allowing him to seek partition. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the appellate court’s decision. However, the Additional Deputy Commissioner declined to partition the land, stating the appellant was not in actual possession. Subsequently, the appellant filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Nagaon, seeking partition and possession. The trial court dismissed this suit, citing a bar under Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The first appellate court reversed this decision, but the High Court overturned the appellate court’s judgment, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, specifically:

• Section 97: This section outlines the conditions for claiming partition of an estate. It states that a recorded landholder may claim partition if they are in actual possession of the interest and, for imperfect partition, requires the consent of co-sharers holding more than half of the estate. The section states:
  
  “97. Persons entitled to partition. -(1) Every recorded of a permanently settled estate and every recorded landholder of a temporarily -settled estate may, if he is in actual possession of the interest, in respect of which he desires partition, claim perfect or imperfect partition of the estate :
  Provided that –
  (a) no person shall be entitled to apply for perfect partition if the result of such partition would be to form a separate estate, liable for an annual amount of revenue less than five rupees;
  (b) no person shall be entitled to apply for imperfect partition of an estate unless with the consent of recorded co -sharers holding in the aggregate more than one half of the estate;
  (c) a person may claim partition only in so far as the partition can be effected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
  (2) When two or more proprietors land -holders would be entitled under sub -Section (1) to partition in respect of their respective interests in the estate, they may jointly claim partition in respect of the aggregate of their interests.”
• Section 154(1)(e): This provision restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of imperfect partition, except in specific cases where a perfect partition was denied by revenue authorities due to the formation of an estate with revenue less than five rupees. The section states:
  
  “154. Matters exempted from cognizance of Civil Court. -(1) Except when otherwise expressly provided in this Regulation, or in rules issued under this Regulation, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the following –
  xxx xxx xxx
  (e) claims of persons to imperfect partition, except in cases in which a perfect partition could not be claimed from, and been refused by, the revenue authorities on the ground that the result of such partition would be to form a separate estate liable for an annual amount of revenue less than five rupees .”

The interplay between these sections is crucial. Section 97 defines who can seek partition, while Section 154(1)(e) limits civil court intervention in such matters, giving precedence to revenue authorities. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the civil court had jurisdiction in a case where the revenue authorities refused partition due to lack of possession, not due to the revenue being less than five rupees.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that Section 97 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, requires a person seeking imperfect partition to be in actual possession and have the consent of co-sharers holding more than half of the estate.
• Since these conditions were not met, the Additional Deputy Commissioner rightly held that the imperfect partition suit was not maintainable before the Revenue Authority.
• Therefore, the civil court should have jurisdiction because the bar under Section 154(1)(e) applies only when an imperfect partition is maintainable under Section 97.
• Any other interpretation would leave the appellant without a remedy, despite having a decree of right, title, and possession.
• Revenue authorities can only carry out partition if all co-sharers consent, but when there is a dispute regarding title or possession, the civil court should decide the matter.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents contended that Section 154(1)(e) of the Regulation bars civil courts from entertaining claims for imperfect partition of revenue-paying estates, except when a perfect partition is refused by revenue authorities under specific conditions.
• Civil court jurisdiction is only conferred when a perfect partition could not be claimed from revenue authorities, the claim was refused, and the refusal was due to the formation of an estate with revenue less than five rupees.
• In this case, the revenue authorities refused partition due to non-possession, not for the reasons mentioned in Section 154(1)(e).
• The respondents relied on the judgment in Moimunnessa v. Faizur Rahman & Ors., which held that partition of revenue-paying estates must be conducted by Revenue Authorities under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• They argued that Section 4 of the CPC preserves special or local laws, and Section 54 of the CPC mandates that partition of revenue-assessed estates be done by the Collector.
• The appellant bypassed the proper procedure by directly approaching the civil court instead of appealing the Additional District Commissioner’s order before the Assam Board of Revenue.
• The respondents argued that the Revenue Authorities, not the civil court, are the proper authority to demarcate land.
• Actual possession is a precondition for a partition claim, and since the appellant did not meet this requirement, the civil court had no jurisdiction.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in the interpretation of Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, arguing that the bar on civil court jurisdiction is only applicable if the conditions for imperfect partition under Section 97 are met. This argument seeks to ensure that a party is not left without a remedy when the revenue authorities cannot grant partition due to the party not being in possession.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court committed an error in holding that the suit filed by the appellant was barred under Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Dhulabhai & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr. (1968) 3 SCR 662: This case laid down principles regarding the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction when a statute provides for special tribunals. The Supreme Court used this to analyze whether the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, adequately excluded civil court jurisdiction.
• Secretary of State, Represented by the Collector of South Arcot v. Mask & Company, AIR 1940 Privy Council 105: This case established that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied, and civil courts can still intervene when statutory provisions are not complied with. The Supreme Court applied this principle to determine the extent of the civil court’s jurisdiction.
• Moimunnessa v. Faizur Rahman & Ors., (1987) 2 GLR 28: This case held that partition of revenue-paying estates must be conducted by Revenue Authorities under Section 54 of the CPC. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that it did not address situations where revenue authorities could not carry out partition due to lack of possession.
• Musstt. Rukeya Banu & Ors. v. Musstt. Nazira Banu & Ors., AIR 1928 Cal 130: This case clarified that while revenue authorities must handle the actual partition of revenue-paying properties, civil courts can determine the rights of the parties and whether the property is liable to partition. The Supreme Court relied on this to support the civil court’s jurisdiction in the present case.
• Thanda Bala Choudhury and Anr. v. Birendra Kumar Choudhury, 2002 SCC OnLine Gau 26: This case held that civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate title to land even when revenue authorities have made a partition. The Supreme Court used this to support its view that civil courts can determine title even when revenue authorities have jurisdiction over partition.
• Ka Trily Tariang v. U. Resdrikson Lyngdoh and Ors., (1984) 2 G.L.R. 8: This case clarified that the jurisdiction conferred upon Revenue authorities does not prevent the civil court from adjudicating upon the right to an asset when entitlement is claimed. The Supreme Court relied on this case to support its view that civil courts can determine right, title and interest to immovable property.
• Daulatram Lakhani v. State of Assam and Ors., 1989 (1) G.L.J. 37: This case clarified that the bar created by Section 154(1) does not preclude suits based on title to the property from being within the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Supreme Court relied on this case to support its view that civil courts can determine title to the property.
• Gauri Shankar Agarwalla v. Madanlal Agarwalla and Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Gau 465: This case clarified that the bar created by Section 154(1) does not preclude suits based on title to the property from being within the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Supreme Court relied on this case to support its view that civil courts can determine title to the property.
• Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 1211: This case discussed the nature of preliminary decrees in partition suits. The Supreme Court referred to it to emphasize that a preliminary decree is a step in the suit until the final decree is passed.
• Venkata Reddy & Ors. v. Pethi Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 992: This case clarified that a preliminary decree is conclusive regarding matters dealt with by it. The Supreme Court used this to explain the finality of a preliminary decree.
• Ramagouda Rudregouda Patil v. Lagmavva, 1984 SCC Online Kar 192: This case explained the true purport and scope of Section 54 of the CPC read with Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC. The Supreme Court relied on this to explain the procedure for partition of agricultural lands assessed to revenue.
• Guran Ditta L. v. T.R. Ditta, AIR 1935 PC 12: This case clarified that a final decree neither relates to any substantive rights of the parties nor decides or declares title to the property or shares of the parties to the partition suit. The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that till the final decree is passed, there is no executable decree.
• Muthangi Ayyana v. Muthangi Jagga rao & Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 241: This case held that a final decree cannot go behind, amend or alter the preliminary decree. The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that a final decree is based upon and controlled by preliminary decree.

The Supreme Court also referred to the following legal provisions:

• Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section establishes the jurisdiction of civil courts to try all suits of a civil nature unless barred. The Supreme Court used this to establish the starting point for determining civil court jurisdiction.
• Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section deals with the partition of estates assessed to revenue. The Supreme Court used this to explain the procedure for partition of revenue-assessed estates.
• Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule deals with decrees in partition suits. The Supreme Court used this to explain the types of decrees issued in partition suits.
• Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886: Specifically, the Court interpreted Sections 97 and 154(1)(e) of this regulation.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the order of the Civil Judge, Nagaon. The Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

Treatment of Submissions by the Court

Treatment of Authorities by the Court

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning:

• Dhulabhai & Ors. v. State of M.P. &Ors. (1968) 3 SCR 662 and Secretary of State, Represented by the Collector of South Arcot v. Mask & Company, AIR 1940 Privy Council 105: These cases were used to establish the principles for exclusion of civil court jurisdiction, emphasizing that such exclusion must be explicit and that civil courts can intervene when statutory provisions are not complied with.
• Moimunnessa v. Faizur Rahman & Ors., (1987) 2 GLR 28: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that it did not address situations where revenue authorities could not carry out partition due to lack of possession.
• Musstt. Rukeya Banu & Ors. v. Musstt. Nazira Banu & Ors., AIR 1928 Cal 130, Thanda Bala Choudhury and Anr. v. Birendra Kumar Choudhury, 2002 SCC OnLine Gau 26, Ka Trily Tariang v. U. Resdrikson Lyngdoh and Ors., (1984) 2 G.L.R. 8, Daulatram Lakhani v. State of Assam and Ors., 1989 (1) G.L.J. 37, and Gauri Shankar Agarwalla v. Madanlal Agarwalla and Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Gau 465: These cases were used to support the view that civil courts have jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties and whether the property is liable to partition, even when revenue authorities have jurisdiction over partition.
• Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 1211, Venkata Reddy & Ors. v. Pethi Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 992, Ramagouda Rudregouda Patil v. Lagmavva, 1984 SCC Online Kar 192, Guran Ditta L. v. T.R. Ditta, AIR 1935 PC 12, and Muthangi Ayyana v. Muthangi Jagga rao & Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 241: These cases were used to explain the nature of preliminary and final decrees in partition suits, emphasizing that a preliminary decree is a step in the suit until the final decree is passed.

The Supreme Court also relied on the following legal provisions:

• Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section was used to establish the jurisdiction of civil courts to try all suits of a civil nature unless barred.
• Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section was used to explain the procedure for partition of estates assessed to revenue.
• Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule was used to explain the types of decrees issued in partition suits.
• Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886: Specifically, the Court interpreted Sections 97 and 154(1)(e) of this regulation.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the bar under Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, on the jurisdiction of civil courts in imperfect partition matters, applies only when the conditions for claiming partition under Section 97 of the same regulation are met. If the revenue authorities cannot entertain a partition suit because the claimant is not in actual possession or lacks the consent of co-sharers as required under Section 97, then the civil court’s jurisdiction is not barred.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court also made the following obiter dicta:

• Civil courts have the jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties and whether the property is liable to partition, even when revenue authorities have jurisdiction over the actual partition of revenue-paying properties.
• The preliminary decree in a partition suit is a step in the suit until the final decree is passed.
• The final decree in a partition suit cannot go behind, amend, or alter the preliminary decree.
• When revenue authorities cannot entertain a partition suit due to lack of possession, the civil court has the jurisdiction to intervene to ensure that the parties are not left without a remedy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Abdul Rejak Laskar vs. Mafizur Rahman clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between civil and revenue courts in partition suits, particularly concerning imperfect partitions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The Court’s interpretation of Section 154(1)(e) ensures that individuals are not left without a remedy when revenue authorities cannot entertain a partition suit due to the claimant not being in actual possession or lacking the consent of co-sharers. This judgment provides a crucial clarification, ensuring that civil courts can intervene in partition matters where revenue authorities cannot provide relief, thereby upholding the principles of justice and equity.

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• Civil courts have jurisdiction to determine the rights of parties in a partition suit when revenue authorities cannot entertain the suit due to non-fulfillment of conditions under Section 97 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
• The bar under Section 154(1)(e) applies only when an imperfect partition suit is otherwise maintainable under Section 97.
• Civil courts can intervene when there are disputes regarding title or possession in partition matters.
• This judgment ensures that parties are not left without a remedy when revenue authorities cannot grant partition due to lack of possession.

Flowchart