Learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellants have been allotted lesser share in the partition order and therefore, the said order is null and void. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs should have raised the question of title in the partition proceedings and thereupon, the Revenue Court could either decide the said question itself or could refer it to Civil Court for adjudication. However, the plaintiffs have not shown that they had raised any such question of title in the partition proceedings before Revenue Court or that the same was not adjudicated upon by the Revenue Court. Consequently, final partition order passed by Revenue Court cannot be challenged in Civil Court, particularly when opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Revenue Court to all the concerned parties. Perusal of impugned partition order dated 02.05.1991 reveals that no objection was preferred against proposed mode of partition. Consequently, the said partition order, which has been upheld by Revenue Courts in appeal and revision, cannot be challenged in Civil Court. Finding
