Civil court jurisdiction survives where a partition dispute turns on title and joint ownership is directly contested.

A suit challenging a private partition and seeking a declaration of joint ownership remained cognizable by the civil court because the dispute raised a question of title. Section 158(17) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act bars partition-related matters, but that bar does not apply where the defendants deny the plaintiff's title and the relief sought includes declaration of ownership with consequential relief. The concurrent findings below treated the claim as title-based, and the objection that other appellate grounds were not separately addressed failed because those grounds had not been pressed in the lower appellate court. The appeal accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit challenging a private partition and seeking a declaration of joint ownership was barred by the Punjab Land Revenue Act and thus not cognizable by a civil court.

Analysis: The bar under Section 158(17) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act applies to partition-related matters, but not where the dispute raises a question of title. The findings of the courts below were concurrent that the plaintiff's claim involved title, since the defendants denied his title to the land claimed and the suit was framed as one for declaration of joint ownership and consequential relief. The objection that other grounds in the memorandum of appeal were not separately dealt with was rejected because those grounds had not been pressed in the lower appellate court.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be cognizable by the civil court, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a partition dispute turns on a question of title, the civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded by the revenue law's bar on partition proceedings.

---