The claim of section 9 suit limiting private partition for possession of immovable property or private division against the family settlement private division was that they were the owners of the suit property through private distribution but they were excluded by the division of income by way of division. Was done. The plaintiff was the co-owner of the disputed land with the plaintiff and others, the defendant submitted a petition for revenue distribution to the Revenue Court and the previous action against the defendants was taken and the possession in favor of the defendant. A warrant was issued. The suit was declared to be the owner of the land Private division or family settlement cannot be declared final division because the co-owner of the joint estate can refer to the appropriate forum for distribution of the same according to law. And action was taken against them. The former did not have any material effect in the court of the venue, which said that the forum was held to deal with fraud in relation to fluctuation / reduction of services or increase in land quality, Revenue Court official Distribution was preferred over private distribution and no partner could be deprived. Due to the fact that the other co-occupants were occupying any of the land, the plaintiff filed a case for permanent injunction after the warrant of possession was issued in favor of the defendant, but was dismissed for non-prosecution. The plaintiffs were aware of the distribution process but they did not change the nature of the shared property absent from the residual division proceedings and they would remain joint until it received the revenue.
