P L D 1957 W (PLP)

H. A. MAJID.‑

The dispute between the parties relates to four mutations of partition of land situated in the estates of Mela, Kot Moman, Bucha Kalan and Daulatpur. Respondent No. 1 claims that the joint property of the two parties in these four estates had been partitioned between the share holders in all the four estates. The Assistant Collector sanctioned these mutations on 23rd April 1950. The appeal of the present petitioners was rejected by the Collector of Jhelum on 21st July 1954, and their revision before the Commissioner was unsuccessful on 29th July 1955. I find it necessary to interfere in revision, because the Assistant Collector, who sanctioned the mutations, appears to have acted on insufficient material. The present petitioners denied the fact that any partition had been properly effected between the parties. Respondent No. 1 bases his assertion on the following facts:‑-- (1) During the lifetime of the respondent No. 1's father, a mutation was entered in the estate of Mela in 1934. The Patwari had asked the then shareholders whether they would allow him to enter a mutation of private partition. Such a mutation was entered and at one time some of the petitioners and the predecessor‑in‑interest of other share holders made a statement to the effect that they had made some Dheris, The Patwari was ordered by the Assistant Collector to record the Dheris in accordance with the lists produced by the parties. The mutation was finally rejected after the death of respondent No. 1's father, because the other shareholders refused to agree to the partition; (2) In a suit between the parties, the counsel for the present petitioners is reported to have stated that there had been a complete partition between the parties ; and (3) The possession of the parties has been separate ever since 1933 or 1934. The separate possession of respondent No. 1 in respect of a part of the joint property is a matter of convenience and cannot be made a basis for sanctioning a mutation of partition as has been done in this case. The fact that some of the present petitioners and the predecessors of the others at one time said something about the formation of Dheris may mean that the talks regarding partition had reached a fairly final stage, but it cannot be binding on the present petitioners unless an unambiguous statement was produced in order to show what part of the joint property had been accepted by" them as a result of the partition. The so called admission of the petitioners' counsel in some litigation between the parties cannot bind down the petitioners simply because it was stated that they were not willing to pay any part of their produce to the present respondent No.

1. Respondent No. 1 has been a Ward of the Court of Wards since 1939, and while the Court of Wards was managing his estate, the property in dispute was still considered to be joint in law. If the proceedings of 1934 were intended to be a full partition of all the joint property, it was surprising that only one mutation was entered in the estate of Mela and no corresponding mutations were entered in the other three estates. It is quite clear that the partition of a large‑sized joint estate involves certain formalities, and a mutation should not show the existence of a formal partition, unless each of the parties concerned is fully in agreement regarding the mutation being sanctioned. When the petitioners are objecting in the present case, I am satisfied that the four mutations in dispute should not have been sanctioned. The counsel for the respondents states that interference in revision should not take place where the Assistant Collec tors decision has been confirmed by the Collector and also by the Commissioner. This particular case, however, justifies interference, because the mistake which I have sported is one of the principle. In the above circumstances, I accept these four petitions for revision and direct that the mutations in the following four cases should stand rejected :‑ (1) Mutation No. 255 of Village Mela, (2) Mutation No. 460 of the estate of Daulatpur, (3) Mutation No. 2382 of Kot Moman estate, and (4) Mutation No. 1508 of Bucha Kalan estate. K. M. A. Revision accepted.