Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were parties to a partition suit, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the Tahsildar, Hingna, under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), effecting partition of the suit property. The partition was executed pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 21st November, 2006 in Special Civil Suit No.925/1998. The petitioners were put in possession of the property on 18.05.2011, and revenue entries (7/12 extracts) were mutated in the names of respective parties. The petitioners contended that the Tahsildar's order suffered from jurisdictional errors. The court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the petition. It observed that the Tahsildar had acted within the scope of Section 54 CPC, which empowers the revenue authorities to effect partition of agricultural land in execution of a civil court decree. The court held that no jurisdictional error was made out and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 54 - Partition Decree Execution - Tahsildar's Order - The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar's order dated 14.09.2010 effecting partition of suit property pursuant to a decree in Special Civil Suit No.925/1998. The court held that the Tahsildar acted within jurisdiction under Section 54 CPC and no jurisdictional error was made out. The writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tahsildar's order under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 effecting partition of suit property is vitiated by any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 54 CPC
- partition decree execution
- Tahsildar's jurisdiction
- writ petition maintainability
- no jurisdictional error
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (02) 135
WRIT PETITION NO. 3426/2011
Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri V.V. Bhangde for petitioners; Shri A.M. Gordey, Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. R.D. Raskar for respondent No.1; Shri A.D. Patil for respondent No.2; Smt. K.R. Deshpande, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5; Smt. M.P. Munshi for intervenors; None for respondent No.6
Smt. Sudhabai Manohar Meshram & Ors.
Wasudeo Chattumal Jhamnani & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Tahsildar under Section 54 CPC effecting partition of suit property.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Tahsildar's order dated 14.09.2010 effecting partition.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged jurisdictional error in the Tahsildar's order under Section 54 CPC.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar passed an order under Section 54 CPC on 14.09.2010 effecting partition pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2006 in Special Civil Suit No.925/1998. Possession was given on 18.05.2011 and revenue entries were mutated.
Issues
Whether the Tahsildar's order under Section 54 CPC suffers from any jurisdictional error.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Tahsildar's order was vitiated by jurisdictional error. Respondents contended that the Tahsildar acted within jurisdiction under Section 54 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tahsildar, acting under Section 54 CPC, has jurisdiction to effect partition of agricultural land in execution of a civil court decree. No jurisdictional error was made out in the present case, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tahsildar, Hingna, has passed an order under Section 54 of C.P.C. effecting partition of the suit property on 14.09.2010.
The partition was done pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.925/1998, dated 21st November, 2006.
Accordingly, the parties are put in possession of the property on 18.05.2011.
Procedural History
The Tahsildar passed an order under Section 54 CPC on 14.09.2010 effecting partition. The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The court heard the parties and dismissed the petition on 21.02.2012.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 54
