A partition suit fails unless the plaintiff establishes co-ownership in the property.

The appellant brought a suit for partition, claiming an interest in land recorded as plot no. 1665, said to comprise 41 decimals.

He relied on conveyances from Jeher Ali Sk. and Khodejan Bibi and on a 2008 revenue-record correction order.

The respondents disputed his title, relying on an earlier partition, subsequent transfers, and the recorded interests of other persons.

The Trial Court found that the appellant had no right, title, interest, or possession in the suit plot and dismissed the suit.

The appellant appealed.

Whether the Trial Court’s judgment and decree dismissing the partition suit suffered from legal infirmity or perversity.

Whether the appellant established a co-ownership interest in the suit property sufficient to claim partition, including in light of the recorded interests of persons not joined to the suit.

The Court stated that a partition suit requires consideration of the property’s nature and character, the source of the plaintiff’s claimed interest, whether all co-sharers or co-owners have been joined, whether the plaintiff has manifested an intention to sever the joint status, and whether the property is supported by evidence.

Partition is available only to a person having a share or interest in the property; where co-ownership is established, a co-owner may demand partition as a matter of right.

The judgment identifies no statute or precedent as the basis for these principles.

The Court relied on the evidence accepted by the Trial Court, finding that plot no. 1665 comprised 41 decimals and that the appellant had no right, title, interest, or possession in it, while the defendant had a 14-decimal interest.

The Court also noted that the finally published RSROR, which provided the primary source of the parties’ claimed interests, had not been challenged, and that other persons with interests in the property had not been joined.

On those findings, the appellant had not established a co-ownership interest entitling him to partition, and the Court found no legal infirmity or perversity in the Trial Court’s decision.

It made no order as to costs and directed the Registry to return the Trial Court records to the jurisdictional court.