1. The plaintiffs, as co-sharers in an estate, asked for adeclaration that, under a private partition made between themselves and theother proprietors, 3 bighas 10 cottahs were allotted to them, and they alsoasked for a partition of the estate by giving them an area representing theirshare, 1 anna 5 dams 10 cowries. A short time before the institution of thissuit an application for butivara was made to the Collector by the defendants,and about the date of the institution of this suit an order was passed by theCollector under Section 31, Bengal Act VIII of 1876, declaring the estate to beunder partition. The matter for decision before the lower Courts as well asbefore us in second appeal is simply whether the Civil Courts have jurisdictionto entertain a suit of this description at the same time that a partition ofthe estate is pending before the Collector. The jurisdiction of the CivilCourts is restricted only in questions affecting the right of Government toassess and collect in its own way the public revenue. We observe that in ActXIX of 1873, regarding partition of estates in the North-Western Provinces, theLegislature has declared it to be necessary to limit the ordinary jurisdictionof the Civil Courts, inasmuch as it has specially enacted Section 135 so as toexclude their jurisdiction, except, as expressly provided, from interferencewith the proceedings of the Collector in such matters of partition. There is nosimilar provision, that we are aware of, in respect of the Civil Courts inBengal. Section 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, which is generallya re-enactment of Section 225 of the Code of 1859, evidently contemplates theexistence of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try suits for partition ofestates or for the separate possession of the share of an undivided estate payingrevenue to Government, but at the same time it leaves it to the Collector onlyto give due effect to any order passed by a decree of a Civil Court. Upon theseconsiderations, as well as from the terms of Bengal Act VIII of 1876, it seemsto us that, although the Collector may, in some respects, be able to decide onmatters in dispute between co-sharers regarding their respective rights, stillthe jurisdiction of the Civil Courts as the final Court for the settlement ofsuch disputes is not ousted. The primary object of the law is to carry out asfar as possible the partition of a joint estate on which the proprietors haveagreed, but this is only subordinate to the protection of the interests of theGovernment revenue. The principal object in view is to carry out an equitablepartition by which the interests of the Government may be secured by theapportionment of the revenue on each portion of the original estate. The effectof Section 29 of the Butwara Act, as we understand it, is that the rights ofthe parties as between themselves in respect to any portion of the estate maybe determined by the Civil Court, but that any decree of the Civil Court willnot affect the joint liability of the sharers in respect to the payment of theentire revenue assessed on the estate until the Collector has taken proceedingsin accordance with that Act. The only question is whether the plaintiffs areentitled to ask the Court for an order declaring their right to separatepossession of 3 big has 10 cottahs on the ground of a private partition byagreement amongst their co-sharers, and whether they are entitled to a shareamounting to 1 anna 5 dams 10 cowries in any partition which may take place. Wethink that there are no valid grounds for the objection taken, and we accordinglyaffirm the judgment of the lower appellate Court and dismiss this appeal withcosts.

.

Gowri Sunkar and Ors. vs. Zaheun and Ors. (20.08.1887 -CALHC)