7. Mrs. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the nature of objections raised on behalf of the contesting Respondents in the present case, could not be said to be raising a question as to title. It was submitted that the coowners having sold their undivided shares to the Petitioner, was not disputed on behalf of the contesting Respondents and, therefore, all that Respondent no.1-Deputy Collector was required to do was to identify the share of the Petitioner on the basis of his entitlement reflected in the registered Sale Deeds and to partition the property, to put the Petitioner in possession of such share. It was submitted that, so long as the registered Sale Deeds executed in favour of the Petitioner were not challenged in accordance with law, the title of the Petitioner could certainly not be disputed. On this basis, it was submitted that the proceedings before Respondent no.1 could not be kept in abeyance. There was no cause for the Petitioner to have invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and since, admittedly the contesting Respondents had failed to challenge the registered Sale Deeds executed in favour of the Petitioner, there could not be said to be any question raised as to the title of the Petitioner, thereby demonstrating that the application for partition ought to have been decided on merits.
