Civil courts lack jurisdiction over partition of agricultural holdings governed by the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code.

The Plaintiff sought partition, possession, declaration and permanent injunction concerning (i) a residential property at C-125, C Block, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi, and (ii) nine bighas of agricultural land in Khasra No. 1685, Village Chhur, Tehsil Sardhna, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

Her father, Harpal Singh Sharma, was alleged to be the absolute owner of both properties and died intestate on 23 August 2017, leaving the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1-widow, and Defendants Nos.2–4 as legal heirs.

The Plaintiff claimed a 1/5th share and alleged that Defendants Nos.2 and 3 fabricated a relinquishment deed dated 28 March 2018 and a Will dated 12 September 2018 in favour of Defendant No.1.

The Defendants contended that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate partition and related reliefs concerning the agricultural land because the land was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, particularly Sections 108 and 206.

Summons had been issued, but issues had not yet been framed.

The Court applied Section 108 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, which prescribes the order of succession to the interest of a male bhumidhar, asami or government lessee.

Section 116 provides the remedy of a suit for division of a holding by a co-sharer bhumidhar, with the competent revenue forum and necessary parties governed by the Code.

Section 206 bars civil courts from entertaining matters which the State Government, Board, Revenue Court or revenue officer is empowered to determine, and specifically excludes claims concerning possession of land and establishment of co-tenure-holder rights under Entries 15 and 16 of the Second Schedule.

The Third Schedule assigns original jurisdiction over suits for division of holdings to the Sub-Divisional Officer, with statutory appeals to the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court may, on its own motion and at any stage, pronounce judgment on admissions without a formal application.

No judicial precedent was relied upon in the supplied judgment.

Since both parties accepted that the nine-bigha property was agricultural land governed by the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, the Court treated succession, co-tenure rights, possession and division of the holding as matters falling within the statutory revenue framework.

The Court held that Section 206 operated as a jurisdictional bar against the civil court, particularly because the Second Schedule excluded claims relating to possession and establishment of co-tenure-holder rights, while Section 116 specifically provided a revenue remedy for division of a holding.

The Court further held that the statutory hierarchy—original proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, followed by appeals to the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue—demonstrated that the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code was a self-contained special enactment governing the agricultural land.

Although no formal Order XII Rule 6 application had been filed, the Court considered that it could act on the parties’ admission regarding the nature and location of the agricultural property.

The Plaintiff was granted liberty to approach the competent authority and to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in accordance with law.

The suit was directed to continue in respect of the residential property situated in Delhi, and the matter was listed for framing of issues on 27 October 2026.