Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 46 of 1946‑47, decided on 5th December, 1952, District Montgomery.

S. 144‑Division of produce‑Shares as given in Jamabandi to prevail in absence of other convincing material.

A presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the Jama bandis and in the absence of any other convincing material, which was not forthcoming in this case, the learned Assistant Collector was justified in ordering the division of the produce according to the shares of the parties entered In the Jamabandis.

1912 L L T p.5 ref.

Khan Muhammad Amin for Petitioners.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondents.

‑‑These are four connected revision petitions filed against the order of the Commissioner Multan Division dated the 23rd December 1946, by which he accepted the appeals preferred by K. B. Dost Muhammad Khan and others, respondents, and reversing the order of the Collector, Montgomery, dated the 29th March, 1945, restored that of the Assistant Collector 11 Grade, Pakpattan, dated the 5ttt April, 1944.

It would appear that four applications were filed by the respondents for the division of produce of Kharif 1943 and Rabi 1944 of the land situated in Chak Nos. 219/1313 and 221/BB In the Nili Bar Colony of the Pakpattan Tahsil of the Montgomery District.

The following pedigree‑table will be of help in appreciating the precise position of the parties in this case :‑‑

It would appear that the members of the family set‑forth in the pedigree‑table above own land in three distrlats, viz., Montgo mery, Lyallpur and Multan. In the Multan District they have a cattle farm which was leased out to Jehangir Khan father of K. B. Dost Muhammad Khan by Government. On the death of Jehangir Khan the lease of this farm was sanctioned in favour of Dost Muhammad Khan respondent on the understanding that it will be regarded as a joint property of the parties concerned.

On the 8th January, 1925, an agreement was executed between Amir Khan, K. B. Dot Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Anwar Khan according to which the property in Montgomery and Lyallpur Districts was to be managed by Muhammad Anwar Khan while the cattle farm in Multan District was to be supervised by K. B. Dost Muhammad Khan and Amir Khan. It was stipulated in the agreement that the property will remain joint and none of the members of the family will exercise a right to alienate, mort gage or divide the3e properties. Later on, on the 6th May, 1937, another agreement was entered into between the parties according to which each party was to retain possession of the property managed by them and the party thus placed in possession to receive the benefit therefrom. This agreement was, however. cancelled in a suit brought by Muhammad Hussain Khan on the ground that the contract was wholly void and not binding on the parties, The case went up to the High Court wherein It was held that the possession of the parties was to continue undisturbed.

In 1943 K. B. Dost Muhammad Khan etc., respondents filed an application under section 144 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for the division of the produce of Kharif 1943 in respect of the land situated in Chak Nos. 219/EB and 221/EB in the Nili Bar Colony, Pakpattan. The Tahsildar of Pakpattan vide his order dated the 5th April, 1944, appointed a referee with an assessor for the division of the produce with a direction that the share in the produce of the respondents should be reckoned as those entered in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari. The objection of the petitioners that they were in possession of the land as co‑sharers and had not cultivated the land on behalf of the other co‑sharers, namely the respondents was considered out of Court. Similar orders were passed with regard to the produce for Rabi 1944.

The Collector of Montgomery on appeal, however, took the contrary view in so far that he held that the division of the produce could only be allowed under section 144 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act if there had been no dispute between the parties. The Collector, however, pointed out that in the present case the petitioners had throughout objected that being in possession of the land in suit they had never furnished account for the produce according to the agreement of 1937. The Collector was accord ingly of the view that the Revenue Officers could and should not give orders for the division of the produce particularly in cases of disputes between the co‑owners should be directed to seek his redress by filing a proper suit under section 77, clause (k) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The acceptance of all the four appeals by the learned Collector resulted in the institution of second appeals before the Commissioner.

While accepting the appeals of the respondents and restoring the order of the Assistant Collector the learned Commissioner observed that effect should be given to the relevant rights of the parties as contained in the Jamabandis or in the Khasra Girdawari and the party that feels aggrieved by that order should be directed to seek redress in the Civil Court. It is against this order of the learned Commissioner that the petitioners have come up in revision.

Khan Muhammad Amir Khan for the petitioners and Khawaja Abdur Rahim for the respondents present and heard.

It is a well‑recognized principle of law that presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the Jamabandis and in the absence of any other convincing material, which was not forth coming in this case, the learned Assistant Collector was justified in ordering the division of the produce according to the shares of the parties entered in the Jamabandis. In this connection a reference is invited to a ruling reported as 1912 L L T page 5 which appears to be on all fours in the present case.

Finding, therefore myself in agreement with the order of the learned Commissioner I reject these revision petitions.

Parties to be informed accordingly.

A.H. Petition rejected

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.