Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was an oral partition with mutual consent of the parties and the parties are in respective possession of their shares of land, so, the question of title is involved. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable. Firstly, the petitioners did not raise question of title at the initial stage. Secondly, the alleged oral partition had never been reflected in the revenue record. There is also no iota of evidence to prove that there was any oral partition between the parties. It is a matter of record that the petitioners had filed a civil suit wherein partition proceedings were stayed by the Civil Court on 27.02.2006, however, the said order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, was set aside in appeal. This position has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. The matter has already been decided by the Civil Court with regard to the question of title, even otherwise there is no evidence on record that the land was ever orally partitioned. In the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 (Annexure P/1), the property is still shown to be joint and in the column of possession the land has been shown as “Maqbooja Malkaan” (Possession of owners, it shows joint possession of all co-sharers). There is no other evidence to indicate that the land has ever been orally partitioned. So, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected.
